In which way an absolute British sea dominance was better for Europe than Napolon’s dominance on land? Nappy at least was not hurting the local economic development.
I would argue the British efforts to continue the war was better for anyone on the Continent so long as you weren't French. Or maybe even some specific French considering how the First and Third Republic tried to erased the identities of the Bretons. Napoleon was an upstart and the stability of Europe demanded that social changes don't happen too fast, so Britain going to war with Napoleon and only offering peace once they had the upper hand made sense