Honestly, I don't know if it'd go either way.
Any medium-term peace is going to leave Britain short on customers, but very capable at sea, and likely the sole (effective) European Colonial power. (It'd be very interesting to see all those overseas colonies coming under British control - like South Africa).
However, I think economics are the danger here. The Continental System cannot hold. It just can't. All those overseas goods? Britain can just partner with the rest of the world. The Continent will smuggle, anyone unhappy will leave for the Americas or Britain. Meanwhile, Britain doesn't have to invade the continent. It'll break away from France if it tries to enforce the Continental System. Russia will always be the hardest to control, and it'll require the Grande Armee to go over again and again to reign it in.
Gibraltar will be the key though. Britain will have to throw so many resources there, that it'd likely need to start considering intervening in the Moroccan Civil War to ensure they have friends on the other side of the Strait. (Which could have all sorts of impacts - a Pro-British Morocco? Easily the start of having the British AND the Ottomans endorsing Barbary Mediterranean Piracy if only to limit the French.
If that window leads to an Ottoman-British alliance AGAINST France? Now you have your landing site. Plus, if we assume British control of India persists, a genuinely colossal Indo-British Army could be fielded, and transported to Egypt, and then to the Balkans. An Indo-British/Ottoman army in the South, and the British raiding the North, with the possibility of the Russians (or others) rebelling in the meantime. That is how Britain could win against Napoleon in this scenario.
Admittedly that is a cheat as I'm using the Ottomans, but if you want to be pedantic, replace the Ottomans with "Any site that the Indo-British Army can land at" (S.Spain perhaps?).