It doesn't sound elitist or arrogant - quite the opposite. It just assumes that people know what's true and what's not up front, and know when the media is telling them the truth. Their little box doesn't only tell them true things.

You can’t remove the administrative state. It’ll be happy to sustain the illusion of “democracy” for you by throwing a few of its representatives under the bus every now and again, but in the end all of the candidates you get to vote for are 100% acceptable to the administrative state and are anointed by it.

Nobody really knows what public sentiment is in the UK, because nobody is asking. They're all just telling the people what they 'want'.

The sample sizes for any polls are tiny, and the areas/people that are sampled are not comprehensive.

It's fairly likely that the people (or a majority of) want the Tories out, as all sides are suggesting that and it's about the only consensus we see.

Brexit was such a mess of misinformation and rushed voting, on something that the majority of people had no idea 'what' they were really voting for, that it should never have been taken as binding - and it probably wouldn't have been if the remain vote won.

At this point, it's unclear if the UK will start to even recover in the next 5 years, or just keep getting worse.

I think the post you're replying to is rightfully observing that that semantic ambiguity creates harm, by equating the position of a country's government to the position of a country's people. Being more specific and saying "a faction within the UK government wants to..." seems like a better framing for any discussion.

A minor quibble. The UK is a 'state', not a 'country'.

It comprises of countries: Scotland, England, Wales, and a small chunk of Ireland.