The EU's Charter on Fundamental Rights, currently being drafted by a broadly based convention, should not be legally enforceable and not contain non-fundamental social rights, IBEC has argued in a submission.
IBEC (the Irish Business and Employers' Confederation) has joined dozens of non-governmental organisations which have made submissions reflecting major ideological differences of approach to the convention, particularly in the sphere of social and economic rights.
A first tentative draft text is expected by the end of this month, but it is clear that by then the 62 delegates - a collection of MEPs, national government and parliament representatives, and representatives of the Commission and Council of Europe - will not reach the required consensus on either the legal status or the scope of rights.
IBEC's representative in Brussels, Mr Peter Brennan, in giving personal evidence to the convention last week with 66 other NGOs, warned: "If the charter includes rights that would normally be considered in the nature of non-binding commitments or aspirations, the whole project could become a legal minefield".
Such rights, he argued, as that to full employment or to vocational training were more appropriate to an interpretative declaration to be appended to the charter, or to secondary legislation.
Speaking on behalf of the Government, Mr Michael O'Kennedy echoed the concern, arguing that there could be broad agreement on elementary rights but not on their elaboration in detail, a task for directives rather than a constitutional document.
Other national representatives warned against what they saw as raising the expectations of NGOs; Britain's Lord Goldsmith QC reiterated their minimalist view of what the convention was about; not the elaboration of an ambitious programme of new rights, but "to make more visible fundamental rights existing at EU level". They were concerned with "rights not political objectives", he insisted,
He argues, for example, that in attempting to define the right of employees not to be sacked unfairly, a range of implementing issues arose - whether to apply to all firms irrespective of size, length of service, how to give redress etc - and that these were more appropriately dealt with at national level. There they could be democratically legislated for, rather than imposed by a European judge.
Mr Georges Berthu, a conservative French MEP, argues that the convention should distinguish between "open" and "closed" rights, the latter including, for example, the right to negotiate with an employer, while the former is the outcome of that negotiation, whether it be hours of work or length of maternity leave.
The chairman of the convention, Mr Roman Herzog, the former German president, has also suggested distinguishing between rights which are intimately associated with human dignity and survival and subsidiary rights.
IBEC backs the idea of enumerating two sets of rights, suggesting that the first, a limited list of fundamental rights, could be enforceable in the European Court of Justice, while the second would be aspirational and non-enforceable.
Social NGOs and trade unions and a majority of MEPs, on the other hand, are more ambitious for the convention. They want it to bring real added value to EU citizens beyond current treaty rights, and argue that rights are indivisible. They want to see the EU committing itself to a binding timetable for the implementation of such programmatic rights as a job, housing or vocational training.
Apart from the gulf over social rights, the convention is still also far from resolving a number of key problems, most notably, whether the charter should apply only to the EU and its institutions or also encompass the member-states.
