Re your last paragraph, yes that is precisely the point. Your argument however is specious; the referendum we are discussing is about politics, sovereignty perhaps, economy, but not human rights (on record uk ignores currently any human rights decrees from Brussels).
The one you want us to compare as though apples to apples is the death penalty, in international law potentially covered by the freedom from cruel and unusual punishments in the Geneva conventions to which uk is a signatory. While not enshrined ATM, there are arguments being put forward to cover this specifically, but either way, for example, us treatment of capital punishment already contravenes international law as it stands right now.
I'd have no problem with international and even European hr laws being made sacrosanct in the uk, but they have also been a pick and choose affair here.
Anyway, human rights vs governance are apples and oranges. We don't get to vote on human rights, such issues are hashed out in the system of law, in which I've always had some degree of faith (rightly or wrongly). We should be allowed to vote on many other things. But, we are not. In fact, in the last 20 years, there has only been democratic votes on sovereignty. Therefore, it would seem to me that your posed question is an irrelevance anyway, put forth only to implore a different response from such as me. On issues of politic, if we get a vote, the vote should stand. On issues of human rights law, not so much. The state should be made to follow such verdicts, yet it rarely is. The Diego garcians would be home by now, there wouldn't have been half the deportations there has been. Were any real lawyers to fight assanges case he wouldn't still be a political prisoner (against int law as it stands).