That's not how I meant it. I mean to say that some EU deals will benefit some countries more than others within the EU, regardless of whether that is the UK, Germany or Andorra and therefore there is scope for the individual countries to get themselves more specific and beneficial deals for them.
In the examples you have used, if the UK was able to have done a deal on its own how do you know that they might not have been able to increase these percentages more than the EU deal provided? There is a good chance that it could have been less too but that's the chance you take.
There is also the argument that being part of the EU restricts the amount and extent of deals that we can have been involved in had we been seperate. Didn't one of the more recent deals around 10 years to complete (I think it might have been the Canadian deal)?
We are an important country on the world stage. Countries will want to do business with us, as we have heard since the referendum. The EU can also do all the huffing and puffing it wants but they know as well as us that doing business with us will bring more prosperity to their countries than not doing a deal would. That is one of the reasons why the EU pisses me off, because it's a bit of a boys club. They don't care if they spite their people just to make a point. If that's the stance the EU wants to take then we are better off out of it. It's the same with the security arguments. It's in no-one benefit for security information not to be shared between all countries let alone just the EU and yet we were all told at the time that this information wouldn't be shared anymore and that we were therefore more at threat of terrorism.