Brussels, 25/05/2004 (Agence Europe) - The British MEP who led the Liberal group at the European Convention, Andrew Duff, has criticised the "feebleness" of the basis of the British government's famous "red lines" during IGC negotiations on the European constitution. In an article published by the Financial Times online service, FT.com, Duff attributes a large part of the responsibility to the foreign affairs minister, Jack Straw, who, according to Duff, is not interested in European affairs and who has not particular experience "except Labour Party politics". This, according to the Liberal Democrat, means that Straw has become "easy meat" for the "highly conservative and pro-American" British civil servants who took over Whitehall in the Thatcher era. Therefore, the Blair government considers that the inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into part II of the treaty would provide a blank cheque to the EU to dismantle union legislation put in place in the United Kingdom by Thatcher. Duff explains that in reality, the field of application of the charter is strictly limited to EU competencies and the scope for its legal application is limited to Community legislation and acts or when Member States apply European laws. Another example cited by Mr Duff is the adoption of decisions on the EU's own resources. The Convention proposed that Member States decide by qualified majority, with the consent of the European Parliament. Duff explains that now the United Kingdom will oppose this proposal simply because it wants to preserve the "British rebate" even if that means that countries that are much poorer "are having to fork out for it". The fact that London is still maintaining its proposal for a "tie-break mechanism" for the adoption of the annual budget (which means that when there is a disagreement between the European Parliament and the Council on the amount for the budget, the lowest amount would automatically be chosen), is, according to Duff, an insult to parliamentary democracy and a threat to the institutional balance obtained at the Convention. Finally, in the area of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), British opposition to the Convention proposed model (decision of the Council at qualified majority for proposals by the foreign affairs minister within the European Council's mandate) "speaks volumes about its real intentions with respect to the development of EU foreign policy", concludes Mr Duff.