'Law pertaining to human rights is a different kettle of fish than politics'
I thought making laws was mostly politics/politics was mostly making laws. You're just using excuses to avoid answering the question because it might undermine your position on leaving the EU - in principle
No precedent or logic? It was a question of principle based on a comment that the public will should be respected because that's democracy. How many times do I need to say it?
As for precedent, California held its last vote on capital punishment (not the first one) in 2016. Here, 'politics' and 'human rights' meet, do they not? To say they are two distinct things with no overlap is baffling to say the least.
'Proposition 62 was rejected by voters in the November general election, with 46.9% voting to end executions.[4] Proposition 66 was approved by voters in the same election, with 51.1% voting to speed up executions.[4] If voters had passed both Proposition 62 and Proposition 66, then the measure with the most "Yes" votes would have taken effect.[5]'
So, '51.1% vot[ed] to speed up executions' - should that vote be respected because 'Any believer in democracy wants the public verdict acted on, not sabotaged.'?