Yup.
Similar to the "equal airtime" or "show both sides" when it comes to science.
It puts unscientific opinions alongside scientific theory as if they are equal.

The only thing I can say in favour of the BBC is that it seems like the majority of people feel it's coverage is favourable to "the other side".
So, while we may be saying "BBC is clearly biased" because of things like this, I guarantee there are people that we don't agree with saying exactly the same about other topics.
So the situation is probably not as bad as it seems.

It does seem the majority of these "scandals" are about the BBC acting in favour of the Westminster UK government. But maybe that just the ones I actually see.

Didn't the EU say that if we were to rejoin, the UK would have to adopt the Euro and all the other shit that the rest of the EU got when they joined. I don't think we're really in a position to dig our feet in and demand exceptions that we threw in the EU's face when we left.

As a Brit, I fully support the idea that we should rejoin with full commitment. No way do I want a repeat performance where we can be taken out by a minority of gullible idiots.

When it was clear the referendum was going to be actioned, I never understood why the UK government didn't just try to implement a move to the EEA or similar satellite level. It would satisfy the terms of the referendum entirely. The referendum was to leave the European union. The wording was very succinct.

The UK probably would never have joined schengen (that's really of hugest benefit to mainland Europe), we never took the European parliament seriously (you can argue that we should have, but we sent fucking Farage, so. No, we never took it seriously).

But the common trading area and freedom of movement did benefit us (and the BS use of it to get votes from the right was filled with lies of course). Which (as I understand it) is the main features of being part of the EEA. It still of course means we'd need to adopt trade related laws of course (Oh my gaawwwd our sovereignty!!!!). But we already were and it didn't hurt us one bit!

But no, it had to be full brexit or nothing (for some inexplicable reason).

Yes, before people say anything. We'd need to be admitted into the EEA. I know that. But it wasn't even tried! That's the annoying thing. It was rejected straight off the bat.

This is an entirely reasonable position. The (narrow) majority of the UK voting public has the relationship inverted; they think the EU needs them far more than they need the EU.

There's no way to come to a reasonable lasting outcome in negotiations.

Much like it makes all the sense in the world for the rest of NATO not to trust the US any more.

Yeah, I'm just saying they need a new slant, a rallying cry. Rejoin just doesn't have that same catchy feel to it.

Hmmmm.... it does roll off the tongue, but leaves a sour taste.

Bre-ntry or Bre-united.

The sentiment I hear around me is that you have been lied to.

We have kept the lights on, like many of you asked, and we are looking forward to welcoming a new humorous generation.

Sure, it is not going to be under the same conditions. Things have moved around when you left. Empty voids have been filled. Regardless, I'd love for us to see the propaganda of the time for what it was, propaganda and lies, and to bring the actors and platforms responsible for willingly spreading lies to their knees.

Together we stand stronger in a strong Europe, and reuniting is a sign of Europe's resilience to external influences.

Our laws are currently fairly inline with EU laws. It's less work to fully align them now than in 10 years, when the Tories have fully dismantled workers/privacy/consumer/human rights.

And I have no issue with the Euro. We still get to do our own artwork on the notes/coins.
We clearly need immigration to cover the jobs people don't want to do, despite the fact that the "they took our jobs" group would whine about work they personally don't want to do being done by others.
It would simplify and clear up our trade, just-in-time logistics for all manor of things, and likely put the UK in a better position as an "English speaking HQ of Europe" for companies.

Ultimately tho, theres going to be a decade of shit to wade through before any potential benefits of Brexit actually come around.
This was a huge talking point about Scottish Independence ("yeh, but you'd be fucked" "oh sure, but after 5-10 years we would be in a better position"). It's fair to say the same applies to brexit (although the benefits of brexit are a lot less apparent to me)

The BBC hasn't been impartial since it was established, it's sole purpose was to support the British State, that was it's entire purpose of being created in the first place. I mean it's not like there was never any news in England prior

Can you expand on that? They're my main news source and I've never got transphobic vibes from them.