EP's foreign affairs chairman reiterates invitation to Yingluck important

[rubl]

The letter Mr. Broks sent to the Thai Ambassador is rather elegant in it's simplicity. Also there is a tone of almost Thai arrogance of "do you know who I am".

So normally this chairman doesn't bother to inform local governments when he 'invites' political 'top' people ? Seems a bit of a diplomatic "faux pas". Does the E.C, the E.P. or just this Commission for Foreign Affairs often meddle in foreign countries internal affairs? Democratically only, of course. Is such the 'right of the might' ?

[rubl]

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.

Very truth, it's the same.

Unfortunately the OP was wrong, the letter Mr. Broks sent to the Thai Ambassador clearly states his Commission for Foreign Affairs invited Ms. Yingluck for a future exchange of views.

[sjaak327]

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.

Very truth, it's the same.

Unfortunately the OP was wrong, the letter Mr. Broks sent to the Thai Ambassador clearly states his Commission for Foreign Affairs invited Ms. Yingluck for a future exchange of views.

So you are claiming that line wasn't in the letter ?

Edit: that line was in the letter, the OP isn't wrong and has correctly quoted the letter:

http://neurope.eu/article/european-parliament-committees-slam-thailand-government-over-forced-shinawatra-travel-ban/

Edited December 11, 2015 by sjaak327

[scorecard]

'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...

We seem to be at:

- The invitation is now from the EU (strange, and given the run down from bangrak indicating no SE Asian committee within the EU)

- The invitation is in regarding to an open discussion (I revert back to earlier multi comments about madams ability to engage in such*)

- The invitation seems to be open in terms of date (strange, surely the EU is more organized this? Also, surely the EU would realize when cases involving serious charges are in process the accused would be barred from leaving the country, and the accused should be focused on preparations for their defense.)

- The invitation seems to be in regard to human trafficking and LGBT issues (*Is madam an appropriate / learned person / a person with deep insights into these subjects? IMHO very doubtful indeed. Did she or any of her brothers gangs ever seriously engage / confront / have discussions / form policies / implement policies about either of these subjects? No! Further, after madam's fake PMship there has been more and positive action re human trafficking by a different government who are now quite knowledgeable about this subject. Why not engage them in discussion to get a more up to date view?)

Bottom line - why am I (and I guess many others) still having strong doubts about the whole purpose of these letters and who actually generated these letters?

[sjaak327]

Probably because you want to have doubt. The letters are clear to anyone but a few Junta supporters.

[baboon]

'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...

We seem to be at:

- The invitation is now from the EU (strange, and given the run down from bangrak indicating no SE Asian committee within the EU)

- The invitation is in regarding to an open discussion (I revert back to earlier multi comments about madams ability to engage in such*)

- The invitation seems to be open in terms of date (strange, surely the EU is more organized this? Also, surely the EU would realize when cases involving serious charges are in process the accused would be barred from leaving the country, and the accused should be focused on preparations for their defense.)

- The invitation seems to be in regard to human trafficking and LGBT issues (*Is madam an appropriate / learned person / a person with deep insights into these subjects? IMHO very doubtful indeed. Did she or any of her brothers gangs ever seriously engage / confront / have discussions / form policies / implement policies about either of these subjects? No! Further, after madam's fake PMship there has been more and positive action re human trafficking by a different government who are now quite knowledgeable about this subject. Why not engage them in discussion to get a more up to date view?)

Bottom line - why am I (and I guess many others) still having strong doubts about the whole purpose of these letters and who actually generated these letters?

Bias plays its part, not that I am denying my own bias. As you are none too keen on the woman, there must be part of you that wants the whole thing to be a sham to reinforce your point of view. In your position I would likely be the same.

[bangrak]

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

'rubi', thank you very much for this link to the new letter addressed to the Thai EU representative in Brussels (maybe ambassador to the Kingdom of Belgium at the same time, I don't know), which should 'clarify' things for all the ones over their 'RPMs' and 'blowing a gasket' on TV.

The 'tone' of the OP, you also give the link to, however is a different 'ballgame', not the same, much softened, 'tone' of letter n°2 at all, and quite in-line with the one-sided bits from letter n°1.

Such differences are quite odd, to say the least, as if, when from the same hand, what is hard to believe, could mean the writer of letter n°2 had been put the, diplomatic, pliers on when committing it, while letting his bias, and lack of knowledge, take the lead in the OP. Another possibility each of both texts have been written by a different person, what is more credible, IMO.

Also, the heading of the paper used for letter n°2 'seems' different (how many have they at the EP?) from letter n°1, and, quite strangely, feels the need to show 'the chair' (of the foreign affairs committee MEP Brok?) , twice, but is still undersigned by the same two MEPs, who actually don't sit in the same committee, and, once more, fail to have their signature earmarked with their respective position (as IMHO they can't, as MEP Langen is not part of the foreign affairs committee), and this is not 'splitting hairs' ;-), knowing the very 'Byzantine' kind (in its intricateness and complications) of the EP, and EU's, in general, administration...

Another disturbing element for me is the obtuseness, or is it willfull blindness, in the, utterly wrong, analysis of the Thai internal situation all the texts show: as if it could be summarized in just two elements: the military government on one side and the last PTP/UDD, 'caretakers'(!) 'government' at the other, ignoring other parties, even weakened but still representative of millions of Thais with a highly geographic concentration, like the DP, and other, though more local, political forces able to make the balance swing, in one, or the opposite direction, as has been showed not long ago...

Also, it could be interpreted as if the EP's foreign affairs committee would be seeking an invitation from Thailand to come and visit soon in 2016, or does Mr Brok live in the illusion he and his flock has some right to arrive here in a time of his liking, in a way not even a UN international tribunal investigation team would not even think of doing?

This reviving the controversial 'urgency' to have (puppet/clone) Yingluck (of all PTP politicians...) come to 'debate' in Europe (don't these guys know yet who was the real PM at the time?), or is that short timing to be linked to the closeness of some seizing of assets and other judicial hurdles for lil' Poo...?

A last detail being that any graphologist analyzing and comparing the signatures on both documents could produce some mighty interesting conclusions...

[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

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...

Sorry I missed 'the other meaning of accountable', or rather any meaning of it related to Yingluck... Maybe it's you who missed the joke...

And, I must admit, I have a 'fixation', a quite healthy one though, on my long time lovely Thai spouse, who has quite some designers' handbags (though less expensive), has a better taste for her attire (she's able to choose by herself) than the repetitive Burberry's tartans (though she could write the name, does Yingluck do, as well as her brother couldn't spell the 'Façonnable' brand on his new red shirt?), ...and, much, more importantly, who has worked hard(!) to earn(!) a meaningfull(!) university degree, and has proved able to get (and keep...), all by herself, positions in international surroundings. Mind you, she is opinionated, has a strong temper and a scoarching sense of humor... So: what Yingluck? I'm sure I'd be able to have a, much, more interesting conversation with any 'seasoned' bar lady in the land, when I would feel the need, but don't, ...so where the reason to have any kind of positive interest in... Yingluck, for Pete's sake!

[bangrak]

Wow some f you are beyond thick.

The head of th ep asked her to come discuss opinions. The request was questioned.

They clarified the tequest that she is invited to dicuss things to the EP.

I guess that is too hard to understand for those with no brains.

Thick, thicker, thickest... you won the saladbowl, congratulations!

...And a large mirror as a personal gift I wanted to offer you for some time already, lucky you!

[rubl]

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.

Very truth, it's the same.

Unfortunately the OP was wrong, the letter Mr. Broks sent to the Thai Ambassador clearly states his Commission for Foreign Affairs invited Ms. Yingluck for a future exchange of views.

So you are claiming that line wasn't in the letter ?

Edit: that line was in the letter, the OP isn't wrong and has correctly quoted the letter:

http://neurope.eu/article/european-parliament-committees-slam-thailand-government-over-forced-shinawatra-travel-ban/

Did you read the letter Mr. Brok sent to the Thai Ambassador?

It talks about the EP Commission on Foreign Affairs having invited Ms. Yingluck to a future exchange of views.

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

Edited December 11, 2015 by rubl

[rubl]

Wow some f you are beyond thick.

The head of th ep asked her to come discuss opinions. The request was questioned.

They clarified the tequest that she is invited to dicuss things to the EP.

I guess that is too hard to understand for those with no brains.

Absolutely, as if some don't know that the President of the European Parliament is currently Martin Schultz

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/the-president/en/president/html/latest-news

The letter is from the 'office' of the 'chair' of the EP Commission on Foreign Affairs with the chairman Brok and another chap inviting Ms. Yingluck for future exchange of views

Edited December 11, 2015 by rubl

[bangrak]

For balance in their research, they will naturally also wish to meet with former-PM Abhisit and a representative of the present government too, if they wouldn't wish to get a single-sided view of Thai political affairs ?

Perhaps they should come here, instead ?

Why meet someone who never won a single election and someone who stole one?

perhaps you should think about that instead?

Why meet someone who was removed from office by a court, for an abuse of power she never denied; and who never actually was the PTP leader.

Might as well invite the non elected appointed UDD leaders too.

Quote : "Why meet someone who was removed from office by a court" , it's spelled "coup" , not "court, and is a short version of the french "coup d'etat" , meaning military takeover.

Come on, don't make a greater fool of yourself than you really are, it's something even Scarlet O'Hara, father Christmas, and his red nose reindeer wouldn't deny: it was a Court giving her the can!

[Linky]

So its nice to see we are all in agreement. As per the facts, yingluck has been asked to attend the EP to give her opinion.

Done.

[rubl]

So its nice to see we are all in agreement. As per the facts, yingluck has been asked to attend the EP to give her opinion.

Done.

As per the facts?

What universe do you live in?

BTW since the chairman of the EP Commission on Foreign Affairs stressed the importance of such exchange of views with Ms. Yingluck at the earliest (at least that was written on their webpage, although not in the two letters) one might expect that such important event would have been discussed in the CFA before. One would assume the commission members agreed to such invitation after which the chairman would issue the invitation.

Strangely enough I can't find anything in meeting notes on their website. Somehow I get the impression the members of the CFA had to find out about the important invitation by reading newspapers (or TVF). Democracy in action?

[thelonius]

Is this still going on? Christ on a bike!

Tell you what, to save further waste of electrons lets just agree that the whole thing is a prank dreampt up by Lord Voldemort na Dubai to discredit the marvelous, can do no wrong, ruling masters of the universe.

Oh and by the way, the Supreme Court said that Yingluck couldn't go, and the marvelous, can do no wrong, ruling masters of the universe are still a bunch of repressive.......................

[metisdead]

A nonsense baiting post has been removed.

[scorecard]

'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...

We seem to be at:

- The invitation is now from the EU (strange, and given the run down from bangrak indicating no SE Asian committee within the EU)

- The invitation is in regarding to an open discussion (I revert back to earlier multi comments about madams ability to engage in such*)

- The invitation seems to be open in terms of date (strange, surely the EU is more organized this? Also, surely the EU would realize when cases involving serious charges are in process the accused would be barred from leaving the country, and the accused should be focused on preparations for their defense.)

- The invitation seems to be in regard to human trafficking and LGBT issues (*Is madam an appropriate / learned person / a person with deep insights into these subjects? IMHO very doubtful indeed. Did she or any of her brothers gangs ever seriously engage / confront / have discussions / form policies / implement policies about either of these subjects? No! Further, after madam's fake PMship there has been more and positive action re human trafficking by a different government who are now quite knowledgeable about this subject. Why not engage them in discussion to get a more up to date view?)

Bottom line - why am I (and I guess many others) still having strong doubts about the whole purpose of these letters and who actually generated these letters?

Bias plays its part, not that I am denying my own bias. As you are none too keen on the woman, there must be part of you that wants the whole thing to be a sham to reinforce your point of view. In your position I would likely be the same.

Well your right on one point, I have no respect for the any person who willingly played the role of fake pm controlled as a clone of / by her convicted and absconded highly corrupt brother who has pulled numerous levers to step by step build a dictatorship and at the same time get his conviction and jail term for a serious abuse of authority and numerous other serious charges (and awaiting his return) cancelled.

In willingly becoming a puppet / a fake pm, she showed her total disdain and total disrespect for the average Thai person.

How could people from another country who I assume are well aware of this background, and have an awareness of her severe lack of involvement and severe lack of contribution in running the government be prepared to listen to her opinions? Would they see her comments as insightful, balanced, totally truthful?

Perhaps you and perhaps the gentlemen from the EU are claiming that everybody should be heard.

Well perhaps all concerned should remember that several people who tried to speak up about the disgraceful shenanigans in progress during her 'reign' were quickly sidelined and gagged, and judges who had the courage to convict members of her mafia were subjected to her gangs outside of their homes and the publishing of their addresses and publishing of their telephone numbers (and those of their family members).

[baboon]

^^

Aye, you'll get no argument from me that the last lot left more than a little to be desired, but I think we shall leave that one there.

[Thai at Heart]

So after all that, the invitation was genuine, and offered in an official capacity.

Incredible how many on here wanted to pass judgement on the supposed proper protocol for how an MEP should invite someone to meet them.

[sjaak327]

Quote : "Why meet someone who was removed from office by a court" , it's spelled "coup" , not "court, and is a short version of the french "coup d'etat" , meaning military takeover.

Come on, don't make a greater fool of yourself than you really are, it's something even Scarlet O'Hara, father Christmas, and his red nose reindeer wouldn't deny: it was a Court giving her the can!

You are right for once. Of course the guy who replaced her was removed by said coup. Along with the care taker government. Elections prevented, because it would be disastrous to have the Thai electorate have a say in all of this isn't it.

Follow the proposals and provisions in the new constitution and a clear message is apparent. The Thai electorate might have a vote in two years, but it won't really matter.

[scorecard]

So its nice to see we are all in agreement. As per the facts, yingluck has been asked to attend the EP to give her opinion.

Done.

"..her opinion..."

Definitely not worth the air fare!

[tuanku]

And answering her case at the Supreme Court is less important?

Realistically - it probably is. The Supreme court will do what they have to do regardless of what happens in the courtroom.

[rubl]

<snip - inappropriate post removed>

You guys are the reason why this goes on and on.

The EP didn't invite Ms. Yingluck. The invitation does not aim for an exchange of views between the EP and Ms. Yingluck.

From an invitation if possible and convenient we have gone to important at the earliest, but not as described in either first or second letter. The second letter also doesn't show a date only a filing reference. The second letter is on a sheet of paper from 'the chair' of the EP Commission on Foreign Affairs. The second letter doesn't indicate if one or the other signee may be said 'chair'.

Of course, it may be that the EP in general and the CoFA in particular is somewhat sloppy in it's formal approach of others and needs some lectures in diplomacy and how to write clear letters. Maybe the EP also has a too high opinion of itself? The Thai 'do you know who I am' approach?

As for liars and oppressors don't deserve to be heard, well what about that. You might have forgotten that even those have the right to be heard. Even Ms. Yingluck will not be denied such.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Moderator01

[sjaak327]

Give it a rest, you sound like a broken record.

Oppressors have no right to be heard, and Yingluck isn't one of those. Of course for the Junta story, all one needs to do is turn on the TV at 6. Each and every day, propaganda and utter &lt;deleted&gt;.

Let's make Thailand strong together hey ? Over half of the country excluded of course,

[rubl]

Give it a rest, you sound like a broken record.

Oppressors have no right to be heard, and Yingluck isn't one of those. Of course for the Junta story, all one needs to do is turn on the TV at 6. Each and every day, propaganda and utter <deleted>.

Let's make Thailand strong together hey ? Over half of the country excluded of course,

Would you deny basic rights to anyone because you don't like them?

Very, very democratic.

As for broken record, just as long as such continue suggesting or even just plain writing about an EP invitation where there isn't an EP invitation.

[sjaak327]

Give it a rest, you sound like a broken record.

Oppressors have no right to be heard, and Yingluck isn't one of those. Of course for the Junta story, all one needs to do is turn on the TV at 6. Each and every day, propaganda and utter <deleted>.

Let's make Thailand strong together hey ? Over half of the country excluded of course,

Would you deny basic rights to anyone because you don't like them?

Very, very democratic.

As for broken record, just as long as such continue suggesting or even just plain writing about an EP invitation where there isn't an EP invitation.

Ah just like the junta is denying basic rights to all Thai citizens you mean ? Since when is listening to someone a basic right ? The EP has every right to not pay any attention to the Junta.

Don't talk about democracy, considering the junta is not democratic and has zero respect for the rights of their subjects.

I am done here, you still trying to make us believe Yingluck isn't invited by the EP although the text of the statement is pretty clear she is.

[rubl]

Give it a rest, you sound like a broken record.

Oppressors have no right to be heard, and Yingluck isn't one of those. Of course for the Junta story, all one needs to do is turn on the TV at 6. Each and every day, propaganda and utter <deleted>.

Let's make Thailand strong together hey ? Over half of the country excluded of course,

Would you deny basic rights to anyone because you don't like them?

Very, very democratic.

As for broken record, just as long as such continue suggesting or even just plain writing about an EP invitation where there isn't an EP invitation.

Ah just like the junta is denying basic rights to all Thai citizens you mean ? Since when is listening to someone a basic right ? The EP has every right to not pay any attention to the Junta.

Don't talk about democracy, considering the junta is not democratic and has zero respect for the rights of their subjects.

I am done here, you still trying to make us believe Yingluck isn't invited by the EP although the text of the statement is pretty clear she is.

So you're just a bad as that bad junta, you mean, denying rights ? But in your case it's obviously only democratically so.

Anyway, The European Parliament may listen to whatever they like to listen to and they'll even write minutes of the event. As such it would seem, but not explicitly clear from two letters that the chairman of the EP Commssion on Foreign Affairs has invited Ms. Yingluck to drop by if possible and convenient. Now of course if you think that that means THE EP has invited Ms. Yingluck, you're sadly mistaken.

[sjaak327]

Give it a rest, you sound like a broken record.

Oppressors have no right to be heard, and Yingluck isn't one of those. Of course for the Junta story, all one needs to do is turn on the TV at 6. Each and every day, propaganda and utter <deleted>.

Let's make Thailand strong together hey ? Over half of the country excluded of course,

Would you deny basic rights to anyone because you don't like them?

Very, very democratic.

As for broken record, just as long as such continue suggesting or even just plain writing about an EP invitation where there isn't an EP invitation.

Ah just like the junta is denying basic rights to all Thai citizens you mean ? Since when is listening to someone a basic right ? The EP has every right to not pay any attention to the Junta.

Don't talk about democracy, considering the junta is not democratic and has zero respect for the rights of their subjects.

I am done here, you still trying to make us believe Yingluck isn't invited by the EP although the text of the statement is pretty clear she is.

So you're just a bad as that bad junta, you mean, denying rights ? But in your case it's obviously only democratically so.

Anyway, The European Parliament may listen to whatever they like to listen to and they'll even write minutes of the event. As such it would seem, but not explicitly clear from two letters that the chairman of the EP Commssion on Foreign Affairs has invited Ms. Yingluck to drop by if possible and convenient. Now of course if you think that that means THE EP has invited Ms. Yingluck, you're sadly mistaken.

What right do I deny the Junta ? The right to be heard ? Hmm, they shove that down my throat any day of the week. So no, I am not nearly as bad as the junta and the evidence of their rights violations are all over the forum. Up to jailing people for Facebook posts !

Let me get this right, two chairmans of committees of the EP invite Yingluck, but not the EP itself ? Right noted. Before you know it, we are getting to the private inviation part isn't it Rubl. After all, the need to paint Yingluck in the worst possible light and paint the Junta in the best possible light are seeminly high. I wonder why...

[bangrak]

So after all that, the invitation was genuine, and offered in an official capacity.

Incredible how many on here wanted to pass judgement on the supposed proper protocol for how an MEP should invite someone to meet them.

As 'sjaak237' and a few others, you seem to feel a compulsive need to go on twisting and turning about this matter.

Why on earth, when you are honest ...and 'genuine', is it so hard for you to admit the so-called 'EU invite' as published in the Shins' owned and controlled media, and relayed by 'befriended' media was just, only, purely a creation of the PR and propaganda team from the Shins' PTP/UDD, and so never existed as such in the first place. Nor was there ever any EP invite! ...After all! And so what you have been defending with beak and claws was, as such, ...a 'fabrication'!

Except the odd would-be Torquemada's the side opposed to yours sadly also counts, who has posted here there was no, informal (no date set), invitation, by two MEPs in their capacity as such (first letter)? It were the texts of a few paragraphs of it, which could have come straight out of the pen of someone like a Robert Amsterdam, which caused many eyebrows to frown, because of their one-sideness in line with the Shins' PTP/UDD propaganda, and far away from the EU's principles of diplomacy.

While, thanks to whose intervention, the text of the second letter, not to speak of the existence of this second letter, is well in line with those sound diplomatic principles, and not deprived of a few elegant(?) 'twists' (saving face is also important in places outside Asia...).

The OP about this second letter (oddly, considering its importance(?) the first letter was not published and got no OP on the EP's internet site, when I'm correct), in itself shows evident contradictions towards the text of the letter, also adding elements clearly totally absent in it, and rather seems to come from the same hand as the first letter, making it, again 'gefundenes Fressen' for the Shins' fan club to start a next round of interpretation desinformation, as if the letter itself had less value than the anonymous OP, sigh...

And let go the dreams of Yingluck 'debating' with the EP, whenever she would meet MEP's, it would not be the assembly of (up to) 751 of them (alas, mostly rather one to two hunderd, really, attending ), alas for your story, it would only be the ones interested, having 'the time' to attend, ...among the 71 (the maximum of members for any EP committee (though about 140 names are listed...) from AFET (Mr Brok), and among the 46 of SEA and ASEAN relations sub-committee (Mr Langen), (again, alas, in reality there are many times more translators present, ...outside of the few minutes needed to assess ones presence in order to collect the attached fee), I don't remember exactly how much the presence fee was for such meetings, but they'd rather be high not to have Yingluck perform a well rehearsed show in front of empty armchairs...

As for the 'proper protocole', as you consider it as 'hair splitting', let me just reiterate that that 'proper protocole' does exist, very much so, and has not been respected, especially not for the first letter, and also not up to par for the second one...

The first letter in itself, ...and then, that second letter following, gives me the, personal, impression there's a pair of self-imbued MEPs walking around with painfull fingernails or ears now, and the OP might show they didn't like it at all to be disciplined by the headmaster(?), although I doubt EP President Schultz would have been alerted in persona for two of his MEPs pulling a silly trick, as it happens too often, and much worse, or ...? You never know...

[sjaak327]

Ah, the boogie man paid for this right ?

The "shins" must control a bloody big number of media outlets...

Good night Bangrak. It's a shame you named your profile after one of the best parts of Bangkok. A disgrace IMHO.

Edited December 13, 2015 by sjaak327