The EU has also used the No Deal Is Better Than A Bad Deal mantra recently, and from their POV it means no-deal is preferable to compromising their Single Market ideals. Why would the EU member nations try to remove VDL when she is following the views of the majority of member states?
If that's the case then we should just call it quits and get on with it, but it seems to me that the EU are desperately trying to keep control over us with their so called fair competition level playing field demands that are far from fair or level.

And if there is no deal we'll see how popular the EU is on the continent when their seafood and lamb jumps in price. I'd wager that there will be discontent, as I don't think that the EU is as popular across the channel as British remainers/rejoiners seem to think. We'll see....
Anyway I didn't say that anyone is trying to get rid of VDL, just pointing out that in any other organisation the person responsible for such a failure would resign, be 'asked' to resign or simply sacked. VDL will sail on as if nothing untoward has happened!

Yes there are some relatively minor tweaks in some cases. The real issue is that these FTA's only cover a small fraction of the UK's trade - I think I read somewhere that it's less than 20%. The FTA that matters the most is the one covering 45% of UK trade - the trade that goes to/from the EU. In effect we're throwing £100 out of the car window, and then celebrating that we've managed to recover £20.
That's a fair point, but should we sign any deal just because of that? What the EU have in mind for us is that we apply EU laws, rules and regulations to our
entire economy including future changes that may well be detrimental to the UK. That is patently absurd as the proportion of our GDP that is generated by trade with the EU is relatively small. About 10% I think.