EP's foreign affairs chairman reiterates invitation to Yingluck important

[Baerboxer]

But how do you figure it's just those two CDU politicians that want her there. The OP speaks of an open debate in the EP !

I understand your need to downplay this due to your obvious hatred for Yingluck, but you are so far failing to do so.

Better not talk about accountability, the Law, electorate or democracy considering the actions of the Junta du jour !

The original letter talked of a meeting with the two CDU MEP's at Yingluck's convenience at either location.

Not of addressing the EP.

Maybe their new letter changes things.

If Yingluck is to address the EP, and exchange views with the whole EP, that would be quite interesting, especially the Q&A session.

Bravo - send her at once.

The OP does state this quite clearly. I was under the impression that we were discussing the OP, not the original letter, which as far as I know never mentioned a meeting with only two CDU MP's either.

Do try and keep up, there's a good chap. I know it might be a tad difficult for you to stretch and cover the whole subject.

But clearly the two letters are on the same subject.

[scorecard]

It doesnt matter what any of us believe. The EP invited her, what they believe is what matters.

"... the EP invited her..."

Questionable.

[sjaak327]

But how do you figure it's just those two CDU politicians that want her there. The OP speaks of an open debate in the EP !

I understand your need to downplay this due to your obvious hatred for Yingluck, but you are so far failing to do so.

Better not talk about accountability, the Law, electorate or democracy considering the actions of the Junta du jour !

The original letter talked of a meeting with the two CDU MEP's at Yingluck's convenience at either location.

Not of addressing the EP.

Maybe their new letter changes things.

If Yingluck is to address the EP, and exchange views with the whole EP, that would be quite interesting, especially the Q&A session.

Bravo - send her at once.

The OP does state this quite clearly. I was under the impression that we were discussing the OP, not the original letter, which as far as I know never mentioned a meeting with only two CDU MP's either.

Do try and keep up, there's a good chap. I know it might be a tad difficult for you to stretch and cover the whole subject.

But clearly the two letters are on the same subject.

Hmm, where did I state otherwise ? I have no problem covering the subject, but then again I don't make up stuff to downplay the invitation...

[rubl]

The usual distractions.

What the EP thinks about the Thai government has no relation to the topic of the chairman of the EP Commission for Foreign Affairs stressing the importance of having Ms. Yingluck over there as the earliest.

Furthermore I never said the letter was a scrap of paper, but indicated

. EP letter sheet with EP letter head

. informal text

. invitation for a talk if possible and convenient'

. signed Ermar Brok, Werner Langen

. no title or function indication

This suggests a private action by two gentlemen who didn't have their own sheet of paper to use.

That all of a sudden the talk is important and should be at the earliest (at least as reported, no letter seen yet) seems strange. No info on the EP website on this 'obviously' important exchange of views' meeting. I guess in Europe things are starting to close down already for the festive season. Please come back mid-January.

PS as for "partial quote in accordance with the fair use policy blah blah blah;"

no such thing when taking info from the EP website and providing a link. It's seems more a case of the motion contained elements you didn't like. Items 12 and 15 maybe?

Here the motion in full

"European Parliament resolution of 8 October 2015 on the situation in Thailand"

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P8-TA-2015-0343&format=XML&language=EN

You still here? Read my post - you'll see the link to the full resolution there..........................

"This suggests a private action by two gentlemen who didn't have their own sheet of paper to use."

Can you possibly get any more pathetic? It never ceases to amaze me that supposedly educated individuals on this forum will go to the lengths they do to back up a military regime purely because they don't like the people the junta usurped.

"It's seems more a case of the motion contained elements you didn't like. Items 12 and 15 maybe?"

I've just re read the resolution, Item 12 being about trafficking and 15 about LGBT affairs - was that you attempting a jibe?

I was wrong you can get more pathetic, well done.

No need to lie, my dear thelonius. There was no link to the EP motion, only a pathetic

"partial quote in accordance with the fair use policy blah blah blah".

and I didn't even modify anything of that pathetic line.

See for yourself

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/877261-eps-foreign-affairs-chairman-reiterates-invitation-to-yingluck-important/page-5#entry10175171

So, still from 'drop by if possible and convenient" to now allegedly "important, at the earliest". Next the threat of boycots? 'give us Ms. Yingluck or we will democratically enforce our might on you?"

Things are slowing down in Europe, holiday season in the air. Please come back mid-January

Why would I lie rubl, I do not need to lie to expose your inability to put your point forward ( I take it you do have a point but I'm beggered if I can see it in all your posts that twist around in ever decreasing circles until they disappear up your fundament). I suggest you take another look at my post number 10175171 - you've even handily included it your abusive post above. In particular, this sentence;

"Look, if you really want to know what the EU thinks of the ruling Junta I suggest you read this; (a vote held in the European Parliament on the 7th October 2015 a day after the letter was sent to Yingluck.)"

You see the word "this" that is underlined (it shows up as being underlined and in a different colour to normal text when posting/editing) thereby denoting a link? Well, blow me if it isn't a link to The European Parliament resolution that you accuse me of not providing.

My apologies, dear thelonius. To my defence I can only say you hid the link too well. Changing font to a somewhat larger size I can see the 'this' has a slight colour and hovering the cursor over it it says external link. It is not underlined which would have been more clear.

BTW doesn't really matter, but your link gives the draft motion of the 7th, my link the accepted motion of the 8th. Study needed to see possible differences.

None of this has much to do with the original letter (possible when convenient) or the alleged important and 'at the earliest'.

PS a week ago you provided a (clear) link to a website which posted about the Thai government being peeved about the EP invitation. Well, I wrote to [email protected] on the 6th but till now no reply. I guess because in the E.C you have the right to be ignored and forgotten.

[rubl]

It doesnt matter what any of us believe. The EP invited her, what they believe is what matters.

Actually at first Brok and Langen invited her for a talk if possible and convenient. Now it seems (allegedly) Mr. Brok in his capacity as chairman of the EP Commission on Foreign Affairs has told the Thai Ambassador about the importance of Ms. Yingluck appearing and that at the earliest. As such the invitation didn't come from THE EP, whatever you care to believe.

[rubl]

If her visit to Mongolia and subsequent speech she made to defend her criminally convicted brother is anything to go by then the Junta have very strong justification to not let her travel. One also has to take into account the Shinawatra's trait of never ever wanting to face the consequences of their actions by running away from accountability and then stating everything they did wrong is all someone else fault and a great big conspiracy. Well done on the Junta for at last seeing the flight risk she is.

Anyway, if she is too busy to attend official hearings in Bangkok she would never find the time to travel to Europe anyway. Poor thing must be run off her feet domestically with all her complaining about never receiving justice in Thailand.

At the very least Yingluck is accountable. Your friends currently running the show aren't, as they granted themselves amnesty. Next.

and telling her that she's accountable resulted in her facebook page with "democracy died today".

As for amnesty, well Ms. Yingluck tried that with her blanket amnesty bill which covered her own two years in office. As if she knew she needed it.

Ýet she tried and failed, the ones I talk about did not fail, as they wrote their own laws. Yet somehow that is ok is it not ?

If you were consistent you would scream bloody murder, yet you don't, double standards for all to see.

Do you even take yourself serious ? most of the rest on here probably don't ..

Thank you for your kind words Sjaak327, I appreciate that.

As for double standards, An allegedly democratic government trying and failing is no problem? All part of a functioning democracy to try to get an amnesty for your misdeeds? If so, why surprised a non-democratic government does it.

Anyway, I agree with you in one thing, Ms. Yingluck is accountable whether she likes it or not.

[sjaak327]

Thank you for your kind words Sjaak327, I appreciate that.

As for double standards, An allegedly democratic government trying and failing is no problem? All part of a functioning democracy to try to get an amnesty for your misdeeds? If so, why surprised a non-democratic government does it.

Anyway, I agree with you in one thing, Ms. Yingluck is accountable whether she likes it or not.

Yes she is, unfortunately the very fact that the people that put here through the court case are not makes the case a mockery, so the case has failed before it even began. I understand that you fail to see it that way, but the rest of the world will. Justice should be served equally for everyone, including people who stage coups.

The Junta would be wise to stop the court case, as a guilty verdict will not only make reconciliation impossible, it will further divide Thailand.

Time to stop talking and act the part.

Edited December 10, 2015 by sjaak327

[rubl]

Thank you for your kind words Sjaak327, I appreciate that.

As for double standards, An allegedly democratic government trying and failing is no problem? All part of a functioning democracy to try to get an amnesty for your misdeeds? If so, why surprised a non-democratic government does it.

Anyway, I agree with you in one thing, Ms. Yingluck is accountable whether she likes it or not.

Yes she is, unfortunately the very fact that the people that put here through the court case are not makes the case a mockery, so the case has failed before it even began. I understand that you fail to see it that way, but the rest of the world will. Justice should be served equally for everyone, including people who stage coups.

The Junta would be wise to stop the court case, as a guilty verdict will not only make reconciliation impossible, it will further divide Thailand.

Time to stop talking and act the part.

You seem to mix a few things to suggest a lot.

For one the Supreme Court handles the case, not the government. Ms. Yingluck asked for justice, the opportunity to present her reasoning regarding the RPPS. Now you try to tell me that 'accountability' means reconciliation is impossible? The government should demand the court drops the case?

Anyway, luckily here we're only discussing the Brok/Langen letter and the recent addition of it being 'important' Ms. Yingluck gets to Brussels or Strasbourg at the earliest. Now waiting for that second letter (Brok to Thai Ambassador) and further developments.

Nothing yet on the EP web site, but it's close to the holiday season for bureaucrats and EP politicians.

Edited December 10, 2015 by rubl

[sjaak327]

I am not mixing things up. The government first impeached the lady and then went for a criminal court case. Pure and simple. Reconciliation isn't achieved by court cases and impeachments. But of course reconciliation isn't the goal here, it was just use to make the coup more pallateable. All talk no action.

I see you still have doubt about the invitation, despite the attempts to clarify (which good readers didn't even need).

I understand you are having a hard time that the EP dare to question your Junta friends, read the first letter to see what I mean, they also mentioned the court case we are discussing, they were concerend, and they should be. Witchhunt, amnesty, lack of constitutional rights.

[baboon]

I am not mixing things up. The government first impeached the lady and then went for a criminal court case. Pure and simple. Reconciliation isn't achieved by court cases and impeachments. But of course reconciliation isn't the goal here, it was just use to make the coup more pallateable. All talk no action.

I see you still have doubt about the invitation, despite the attempts to clarify (which good readers didn't even need).

I understand you are having a hard time that the EP dare to question your Junta friends, read the first letter to see what I mean, they also mentioned the court case we are discussing, they were concerend, and they should be. Witchhunt, amnesty, lack of constitutional rights.

Don't you see he is simply yanking your chain? He doesn't have any doubt about the validity of the invitation. Just try asking him any simple, direct question he cannot backtrack on, insist he answer it before the discussion continues and watch him run for the hills or redirect the question in a panic.

[sjaak327]

I am not mixing things up. The government first impeached the lady and then went for a criminal court case. Pure and simple. Reconciliation isn't achieved by court cases and impeachments. But of course reconciliation isn't the goal here, it was just use to make the coup more pallateable. All talk no action.

I see you still have doubt about the invitation, despite the attempts to clarify (which good readers didn't even need).

I understand you are having a hard time that the EP dare to question your Junta friends, read the first letter to see what I mean, they also mentioned the court case we are discussing, they were concerend, and they should be. Witchhunt, amnesty, lack of constitutional rights.

Don't you see he is simply yanking your chain? He doesn't have any doubt about the validity of the invitation. Just try asking him any simple, direct question he cannot backtrack on, insist he answer it before the discussion continues and watch him run for the hills or redirect the question in a panic.

You are right, and I did ask a direct simple question that indeed went unanswered. At least it keeps the thread active

[thelonius]

I am not mixing things up. The government first impeached the lady and then went for a criminal court case. Pure and simple. Reconciliation isn't achieved by court cases and impeachments. But of course reconciliation isn't the goal here, it was just use to make the coup more pallateable. All talk no action.

I see you still have doubt about the invitation, despite the attempts to clarify (which good readers didn't even need).

I understand you are having a hard time that the EP dare to question your Junta friends, read the first letter to see what I mean, they also mentioned the court case we are discussing, they were concerend, and they should be. Witchhunt, amnesty, lack of constitutional rights.

Don't you see he is simply yanking your chain? He doesn't have any doubt about the validity of the invitation. Just try asking him any simple, direct question he cannot backtrack on, insist he answer it before the discussion continues and watch him run for the hills or redirect the question in a panic.

You are right, and I did ask a direct simple question that indeed went unanswered. At least it keeps the thread active

I believe it is called click bait and possibly why some on here are tolerated.

[rubl]

I am not mixing things up. The government first impeached the lady and then went for a criminal court case. Pure and simple. Reconciliation isn't achieved by court cases and impeachments. But of course reconciliation isn't the goal here, it was just use to make the coup more pallateable. All talk no action.

I see you still have doubt about the invitation, despite the attempts to clarify (which good readers didn't even need).

I understand you are having a hard time that the EP dare to question your Junta friends, read the first letter to see what I mean, they also mentioned the court case we are discussing, they were concerend, and they should be. Witchhunt, amnesty, lack of constitutional rights.

Don't you see he is simply yanking your chain? He doesn't have any doubt about the validity of the invitation. Just try asking him any simple, direct question he cannot backtrack on, insist he answer it before the discussion continues and watch him run for the hills or redirect the question in a panic.

You are right, and I did ask a direct simple question that indeed went unanswered. At least it keeps the thread active

Conclusion, no objective comments, just attacking the poster. As usual.

Thank you for your participation gentlemen.

[rubl]

I am not mixing things up. The government first impeached the lady and then went for a criminal court case. Pure and simple. Reconciliation isn't achieved by court cases and impeachments. But of course reconciliation isn't the goal here, it was just use to make the coup more pallateable. All talk no action.

I see you still have doubt about the invitation, despite the attempts to clarify (which good readers didn't even need).

I understand you are having a hard time that the EP dare to question your Junta friends, read the first letter to see what I mean, they also mentioned the court case we are discussing, they were concerend, and they should be. Witchhunt, amnesty, lack of constitutional rights.

Don't you see he is simply yanking your chain? He doesn't have any doubt about the validity of the invitation. Just try asking him any simple, direct question he cannot backtrack on, insist he answer it before the discussion continues and watch him run for the hills or redirect the question in a panic.

You are right, and I did ask a direct simple question that indeed went unanswered. At least it keeps the thread active

I believe it is called click bait and possibly why some on here are tolerated.

Indeed, and how many times have you been allowed to return?

[lovelomsak]

Daniel Russell is coming back to Thailand next week. I wonder if he will weigh in on this and give an opinion. The next country on his visit is Japan,perhaps business as usual.

[seajae]

I am not mixing things up. The government first impeached the lady and then went for a criminal court case. Pure and simple. Reconciliation isn't achieved by court cases and impeachments. But of course reconciliation isn't the goal here, it was just use to make the coup more pallateable. All talk no action.

I see you still have doubt about the invitation, despite the attempts to clarify (which good readers didn't even need).

I understand you are having a hard time that the EP dare to question your Junta friends, read the first letter to see what I mean, they also mentioned the court case we are discussing, they were concerend, and they should be. Witchhunt, amnesty, lack of constitutional rights.

seems more like another thaksin/ptp/red lover pissed his hero is being charged for what she has done or failed to do. Looks like you lot can only be satisfied if your heroes are simply let off instead of facing the legal actions that they have caused themselves by their pathetic attempts to satisfy the big boss and rip the country off blind. To even invite her to talk about something she knows bugger all about is beyond a joke, this is simply a favour to her brother to cause more crap and muddy the waters. Why would they invite someone that cant speak english, isnt smart enough to answer any questions and has to have all her speeches(even facebook) written for her because she isnt bright enough to do it herself.

Edited December 11, 2015 by seajae

[sjaak327]

I am not mixing things up. The government first impeached the lady and then went for a criminal court case. Pure and simple. Reconciliation isn't achieved by court cases and impeachments. But of course reconciliation isn't the goal here, it was just use to make the coup more pallateable. All talk no action.

I see you still have doubt about the invitation, despite the attempts to clarify (which good readers didn't even need).

I understand you are having a hard time that the EP dare to question your Junta friends, read the first letter to see what I mean, they also mentioned the court case we are discussing, they were concerend, and they should be. Witchhunt, amnesty, lack of constitutional rights.

Don't you see he is simply yanking your chain? He doesn't have any doubt about the validity of the invitation. Just try asking him any simple, direct question he cannot backtrack on, insist he answer it before the discussion continues and watch him run for the hills or redirect the question in a panic.

You are right, and I did ask a direct simple question that indeed went unanswered. At least it keeps the thread active

Conclusion, no objective comments, just attacking the poster. As usual.

Thank you for your participation gentlemen.

So claiming (correctly) that you failed to answer a question is attacking the poster now ?

This thread is full of objective comments, it's a shame you choose to ignore them.

[sjaak327]

I am not mixing things up. The government first impeached the lady and then went for a criminal court case. Pure and simple. Reconciliation isn't achieved by court cases and impeachments. But of course reconciliation isn't the goal here, it was just use to make the coup more pallateable. All talk no action.

I see you still have doubt about the invitation, despite the attempts to clarify (which good readers didn't even need).

I understand you are having a hard time that the EP dare to question your Junta friends, read the first letter to see what I mean, they also mentioned the court case we are discussing, they were concerend, and they should be. Witchhunt, amnesty, lack of constitutional rights.

seems more like another thaksin/ptp/red lover pissed his hero is being charged for what she has done or failed to do. Looks like you lot can only be satisfied if your heroes are simply let off instead of facing the legal actions that they have caused themselves by their pathetic attempts to satisfy the big boss and rip the country off blind. To even invite her to talk about something she knows bugger all about is beyond a joke, this is simply a favour to her brother to cause more crap and muddy the waters. Why would they invite someone that cant speak english, isnt smart enough to answer any questions and has to have all her speeches(even facebook) written for her because she isnt bright enough to do it herself.

Thaksin nor Yingluck are my "heros". If they are going to be charged, everyone breaking the law should be charged, including the currrent lot, I"m surprised this concept is so hard to understand.

As to the invitation, take it up with the EP, they are the party inviting. It seems they don't share your sentiments.

Not speaking English shouldn't be a problem where she is going.

Edited December 11, 2015 by sjaak327

[bangrak]

If they really wanted to talk to her so badly they could have come here. If they just wanted to speak to the opposition they could have called her brother or another redshirt leader. They seem to be trying to force her exit from Thailand for reasons whereas there are other solutions to get what information they want. Besides, if she went there she would need her entourage with her to tell her what to say or how to answer them. Unless they want some shopping advice

The article states she is to appear in an open debate in the European parliament. That parliament's debating room is in Brussels and Strasbourg, not anywhere in Thailand. The article also is clear that they are not after shopping advice either...

Of course denying an innocent person to travel is what should be criticized and it is.

Must be wearing the wrong glasses, 'sjaak327', can't find that article stating '...she is to appear in an open debate in the European parliament', when it wouldn't be there, it could make your 'That parliaments debating room...' thing misleading, when you'd mean the Brussels' or Strasbourg's huge aula where the plenary meetings of the gathered MEPs alternatively take place, do you know? ...As it has never been said anywhere she would be speaking to the assembly of MEPs, just, on a much, much smaller scale, with those one MEPs member of the S.E. Asia sub-committee, and of the ASEAN sub-committee, a bit as if you'd tell your friend would meet the Royal Family, just because he would go visit the Grand Palace...

[sjaak327]

If they really wanted to talk to her so badly they could have come here. If they just wanted to speak to the opposition they could have called her brother or another redshirt leader. They seem to be trying to force her exit from Thailand for reasons whereas there are other solutions to get what information they want. Besides, if she went there she would need her entourage with her to tell her what to say or how to answer them. Unless they want some shopping advice

The article states she is to appear in an open debate in the European parliament. That parliament's debating room is in Brussels and Strasbourg, not anywhere in Thailand. The article also is clear that they are not after shopping advice either...

Of course denying an innocent person to travel is what should be criticized and it is.

Must be wearing the wrong glasses, 'sjaak327', can't find that article stating '...she is to appear in an open debate in the European parliament', when it wouldn't be there, it could make your 'That parliaments debating room...' thing misleading, when you'd mean the Brussels' or Strasbourg's huge aula where the plenary meetings of the gathered MEPs alternatively take place, do you know? ...As it has never been said anywhere she would be speaking to the assembly of MEPs, just, on a much, much smaller scale, with those one MEPs member of the S.E. Asia sub-committee, and of the ASEAN sub-committee, a bit as if you'd tell your friend would meet the Royal Family, just because he would go visit the Grand Palace...

From the OP:

"They said they were surprised and deeply disappointed with the decision of the Thai authorities to block her appearance in an open debate in the European Parliament."

And it is obvious I know about the two big debating rooms in Brussels and Strasbourg from my post. I visit both cities often for work.. As a matter of fact, currently posting this in Brussels.

Edited December 11, 2015 by sjaak327

[LannaGuy]

It doesnt matter what any of us believe. The EP invited her, what they believe is what matters.

"... the EP invited her..."

Questionable.

Give it a rest dude the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs CHAIRMAN has stated this and just because it does not fit your biased opinion does not make it less true. Not that truth has ever bothered you in the past I observe

[bangrak]

It would be interesting to see that new letter from Mr Brock and Mr Langen reproduced on TV, to be able to compare its form with that of the previous one, for each of us to able to make a personal opinion on the subject.

Not only just as a EU citizen, I have years long, since its beginning, been closely following what was happening inside the EP, and won't here and now start ventilating my ...quite critical opinion about what should have become the corner stone of the EU institutions, but just allow me to say that in all that time, I have witnessed a large number of 'interpellating' (sometimes 'hair-raising', 'gobsmacking', 'eye-popping', ...) situations and processes, and can't remember to have seen or heard anything like that 'letter n°1', and, now, with this 'letter n°2', and a content close to what we are told today, it would be plain unbelievable, and a huge shame for the persons of MEP Brock and MEP Langen, both dye-hard, old(!), professional, politicians, who should, the more so in their respective foreign-oriented positions inside the EP, be producing all but un-diplomatic, one-sided writings, as these are entirely contra-productive, only contributing to more divide and controverse in a country they could be supposed to have positive feelings for.

Sadly, my mind's attempts to find a reasonable explaination, produce only a negative alternative.

The lesser: two self-imbued old mandarins in their ivory golden tower not interested the slightest in the true reality, and complexity, of the Thai situation, in their irresponsible vanity producing, not one but two, highly contentious letters, or...

The worse: two side-tracked embarassing end-of-career political creatures, letting themselves be manipulated (and abused), probably in exchange of some kind of appetizing side-retribution, by some, rich and powerfull, lobby group, into showing-off their, totally, imaginary powers in writing letters 'on order' to be used in an ongoing orchestrated agit-prop campaign.

The question though, in both possibilities, remaining where the biased and partial des-'information' they, and possibly other MEPs, or even the EP, the EU, must have received originates from... The present situation making me hope the (much more important and meaningfull) EU Commission(!) will investigate the quality, and impartiality, of its sources of informations concerning Thailand... But I wouldn't alas bet on it.

[bangrak]

It doesnt matter what any of us believe. The EP invited her, what they believe is what matters.

"... the EP invited her..."

Questionable.

Give it a rest dude the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs CHAIRMAN has stated this and just because it does not fit your biased opinion does not make it less true. Not that truth has ever bothered you in the past I observe

You seem to have 'conveniently' forgotten what Yingluck's own team of lawyers has been writing about it, the truth from the horse's mouth, so to speak, ...and so different from what's in your propaganda prosa... And, as you seem to like 'emoticons':

[sjaak327]

It would be interesting to see that new letter from Mr Brock and Mr Langen reproduced on TV, to be able to compare its form with that of the previous one, for each of us to able to make a personal opinion on the subject.

Not only just as a EU citizen, I have years long, since its beginning, been closely following what was happening inside the EP, and won't here and now start ventilating my ...quite critical opinion about what should have become the corner stone of the EU institutions, but just allow me to say that in all that time, I have witnessed a large number of 'interpellating' (sometimes 'hair-raising', 'gobsmacking', 'eye-popping', ...) situations and processes, and can't remember to have seen or heard anything like that 'letter n°1', and, now, with this 'letter n°2', and a content close to what we are told today, it would be plain unbelievable, and a huge shame for the persons of MEP Brock and MEP Langen, both dye-hard, old(!), professional, politicians, who should, the more so in their respective foreign-oriented positions inside the EP, be producing all but un-diplomatic, one-sided writings, as these are entirely contra-productive, only contributing to more divide and controverse in a country they could be supposed to have positive feelings for.

Sadly, my mind's attempts to find a reasonable explaination, produce only a negative alternative.

The lesser: two self-imbued old mandarins in their ivory golden tower not interested the slightest in the true reality, and complexity, of the Thai situation, in their irresponsible vanity producing, not one but two, highly contentious letters, or...

The worse: two side-tracked embarassing end-of-career political creatures, letting themselves be manipulated (and abused), probably in exchange of some kind of appetizing side-retribution, by some, rich and powerfull, lobby group, into showing-off their, totally, imaginary powers in writing letters 'on order' to be used in an ongoing orchestrated agit-prop campaign.

The question though, in both possibilities, remaining where the biased and partial des-'information' they, and possibly other MEPs, or even the EP, the EU, must have received originates from... The present situation making me hope the (much more important and meaningfull) EU Commission(!) will investigate the quality, and impartiality, of its sources of informations concerning Thailand... But I wouldn't alas bet on it.

I don't understand the problem. Like it or not, Yingluck IS the last legitimate PM of Thailand. She won the elections with an absolute landslide. It is entirly reasonable for them to want to speak with her and hear her side of the story. The propaganda from the Junta is far from the truth, and they have placed themselves above the law so it is not surprising they are not really taken seriously. Of course the Junta propaganda can be seen each and every day after 6 PM on Thai Tv...

You obviously haven't read the OP, so let me quote once again:

"They underline the desire of the European Parliament to visit Thailand in 2016 and to meet at this occasion the Parliament, government’s representatives, civil society and opposition leaders including Ms Yingluck."

So there is no question of one sided, they apparently plan to hear all sides of the story.

The desire to have Yingluck come to Brussels/Strasbourg is understandable as well, considering the Junta's record regarding freedom of speech and press, of which we hear examples on a daily basis now.

Edited December 11, 2015 by sjaak327

[rubl]

A bit of searching, but here's the letter Mr. Brok as chairman of the Commission for Foreign Affairs has sent to the Thai Ambassador.

http://www.polcms.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/upload/aa79583a-c14d-4098-a0a1-1e303fd6ef88/D(2015)56649_Brok%20and%20Langen%20to%20N%20Gunavibool_signed.pdf

BTW most of the text of the OP seems here

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/afet/home.html

[bangrak]

If they really wanted to talk to her so badly they could have come here. If they just wanted to speak to the opposition they could have called her brother or another redshirt leader. They seem to be trying to force her exit from Thailand for reasons whereas there are other solutions to get what information they want. Besides, if she went there she would need her entourage with her to tell her what to say or how to answer them. Unless they want some shopping advice

The article states she is to appear in an open debate in the European parliament. That parliament's debating room is in Brussels and Strasbourg, not anywhere in Thailand. The article also is clear that they are not after shopping advice either...

Of course denying an innocent person to travel is what should be criticized and it is.

Must be wearing the wrong glasses, 'sjaak327', can't find that article stating '...she is to appear in an open debate in the European parliament', when it wouldn't be there, it could make your 'That parliaments debating room...' thing misleading, when you'd mean the Brussels' or Strasbourg's huge aula where the plenary meetings of the gathered MEPs alternatively take place, do you know? ...As it has never been said anywhere she would be speaking to the assembly of MEPs, just, on a much, much smaller scale, with those one MEPs member of the S.E. Asia sub-committee, and of the ASEAN sub-committee, a bit as if you'd tell your friend would meet the Royal Family, just because he would go visit the Grand Palace...

From the OP:

"They said they were surprised and deeply disappointed with the decision of the Thai authorities to block her appearance in an open debate in the European Parliament."

And it is obvious I know about the two big debating rooms in Brussels and Strasbourg from my post. I visit both cities often for work.. As a matter of fact, currently posting this in Brussels.

Still, '...in the European Parliament' does not mean what you tried to mislead us in believing. There has never been any reference made to Ms Yingluck addressing or debating with the plenary (nor an extraordinary) meeting of the (maximum) 751 MEPs, which could only happen after an official, scheduled(!), invitation by the presidency of the EP (Martin Schultz)! All committees count a maximum of 71 MEPs, like the foreign affairs committe (Mr Brok), the, unrelated, ASEAN relations sub-committee counts 46 (Mr Langen)...

[bangrak]

'sjaak327', I checked a few other things about the EP on its website.

It seems of the odd one hunderd ongoing matters the foreign affairs committee is busy with (records back to /07/2014), NONE is related to Thailand.

It seems a S.E. Asian sub-committee, or at least any activity of it, is not to be found on the EP's own internet site.

It seems Mr Brock has not a single time intervened in the assembly about anything concerningThailand (the subject he most intervened about is the ...race circuit of the Nuerburgring), nor is there any Thailand related question of his recorded.

It seems NONE of the ongoing affairs the ASEAN relations sub-committe is busy with concerns Thailand (records backto /7/2014).

It seems Mr Langen has not a single time intervened in or questioned the assembly about any matter concerning Thailand.

It seems, to me, that, when one of these two MEPs, individually, or in its position of president of the respective (sub-)committees would show a genuine and sustained interest in the political situation in the Kingdom of Thailand, this would have manifested itself in their actions as, and inside of, the EP, quod non!

It seems to me that their as sudden, as 'providential', manifestation of interest towards 'Khun Yingluck' is, the more so in its biased, one-sided, ...and offensive form, is quite 'suspect', to say the least...

[bangrak]

If her visit to Mongolia and subsequent speech she made to defend her criminally convicted brother is anything to go by then the Junta have very strong justification to not let her travel. One also has to take into account the Shinawatra's trait of never ever wanting to face the consequences of their actions by running away from accountability and then stating everything they did wrong is all someone else fault and a great big conspiracy. Well done on the Junta for at last seeing the flight risk she is.

Anyway, if she is too busy to attend official hearings in Bangkok she would never find the time to travel to Europe anyway. Poor thing must be run off her feet domestically with all her complaining about never receiving justice in Thailand.

At the very least Yingluck is accountable. Your friends currently running the show aren't, as they granted themselves amnesty. Next.

Great! 'sjaak327' is telling us Yingluck is 'at the very least' 'accountable'! Not sure her army of lawyers will be happy with what you tell 'sjaak327', as 'accountable' is synonimous of 'responsible'... and very possibly 'guilty' in the rice scam affair! You're sure you don't want to rephrase, 'sjaak327'? LOL

[sjaak327]

If her visit to Mongolia and subsequent speech she made to defend her criminally convicted brother is anything to go by then the Junta have very strong justification to not let her travel. One also has to take into account the Shinawatra's trait of never ever wanting to face the consequences of their actions by running away from accountability and then stating everything they did wrong is all someone else fault and a great big conspiracy. Well done on the Junta for at last seeing the flight risk she is.

Anyway, if she is too busy to attend official hearings in Bangkok she would never find the time to travel to Europe anyway. Poor thing must be run off her feet domestically with all her complaining about never receiving justice in Thailand.

At the very least Yingluck is accountable. Your friends currently running the show aren't, as they granted themselves amnesty. Next.

Great! 'sjaak327' is telling us Yingluck is 'at the very least' 'accountable'! Not sure her army of lawyers will be happy with what you tell 'sjaak327', as 'accountable' is synonimous of 'responsible'... and very possibly 'guilty' in the rice scam affair! You're sure you don't want to rephrase, 'sjaak327'? LOL

The joke is on you, with your unhealthy fixation on Yingluck, the actual message went right over your head.

Of course Yingluck is accountable. You missed the other meaning of accountable...

[sjaak327]

From the OP:

"They said they were surprised and deeply disappointed with the decision of the Thai authorities to block her appearance in an open debate in the European Parliament."

And it is obvious I know about the two big debating rooms in Brussels and Strasbourg from my post. I visit both cities often for work.. As a matter of fact, currently posting this in Brussels.

Still, '...in the European Parliament' does not mean what you tried to mislead us in believing. There has never been any reference made to Ms Yingluck addressing or debating with the plenary (nor an extraordinary) meeting of the (maximum) 751 MEPs, which could only happen after an official, scheduled(!), invitation by the presidency of the EP (Martin Schultz)! All committees count a maximum of 71 MEPs, like the foreign affairs committe (Mr Brok), the, unrelated, ASEAN relations sub-committee counts 46 (Mr Langen)...

I said:

"The article states she is to appear in an open debate in the European parliament"

the OP states:

They said they were surprised and deeply disappointed with the decision of the Thai authorities to block her appearance in an open debate in the European Parliament

I don't see any discrepancy in both quotes.