EP's foreign affairs chairman reiterates invitation to Yingluck important

[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.

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...

Because it isn't for the Thais, or us, to say what the true protocol is or isn't, and as they have reiterated again, they have invited her to address the parliament.

It is for the parliament to tell the MPs sending the invite whether they have broken protocol and no one else.

[Ricardo]

Just to point out that if the committee are already corresponding with local Thai diplomats in Europe, as it appears that they are, then they are already talking to (and hearing from) the current government ?

[bangrak]

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.

Well, actually the Shins do own or control quite a few rags and TV stations, plus, as I said all the 'befriended' ones realying the des-information produced by their PR and propaganda services.

But what about that 'EU invite', hmm, 'sjaak327', are you still pretending it ever existed as such...?

[bangrak]

There is no right to be heard rubl, this is not a court. The EP (or two EP committees) wish to hear certain people on the situation in Thailand. If the EP excludes certain people from being heard, no basic human rights are being violated. It's entirely up to them to determine who they deem worthy of hearing.

Now apparently they will hear government officials as well as members of the opposition. If Abhishit belongs to the opposition I will leave in the middle. In any case, even if they refrain from hearing the Junta, there is no human rights violation. For that you need to look at the people you so heavily support. They are experts in the matter.

And still turning and twisting 'sjaak327'! Where did you get anything as such from, to justify your: 'The EP (or two EP committees) wish to hear certain people...', hmm?

[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...

Because it isn't for the Thais, or us, to say what the true protocol is or isn't, and as they have reiterated again, they have invited her to address the parliament.

It is for the parliament to tell the MPs sending the invite whether they have broken protocol and no one else.

'Thai at Heart', '...they have invited her to address the parliament': NO, they have not done so, not in their own words at least, so probably only in you fertile imagination?

[sjaak327]

There is no right to be heard rubl, this is not a court. The EP (or two EP committees) wish to hear certain people on the situation in Thailand. If the EP excludes certain people from being heard, no basic human rights are being violated. It's entirely up to them to determine who they deem worthy of hearing.

Now apparently they will hear government officials as well as members of the opposition. If Abhishit belongs to the opposition I will leave in the middle. In any case, even if they refrain from hearing the Junta, there is no human rights violation. For that you need to look at the people you so heavily support. They are experts in the matter.

And still turning and twisting 'sjaak327'! Where did you get anything as such from, to justify your: 'The EP (or two EP committees) wish to hear certain people...', hmm?

By reading the Op of course. Pretty clear they have a desire to hear Yingluck. The only people twisting and turning are the ones that have a peculiar need to downplay this. Again the question would be why ?

[scorecard]

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 ?

May be it is her side of the story they are want. Perhaps they wish to talk in a safe environment for her. They cannot bring the European Parliament here she must go there to talk read the article.

Is this part of a 'knock knock who's there' joke?

[blueyeshk]

Would be interesting to know the background story of mr. Broek and why he cares so much.

[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.

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...

Because it isn't for the Thais, or us, to say what the true protocol is or isn't, and as they have reiterated again, they have invited her to address the parliament.

It is for the parliament to tell the MPs sending the invite whether they have broken protocol and no one else.

'Thai at Heart', '...they have invited her to address the parliament': NO, they have not done so, not in their own words at least, so probably only in you fertile imagination?

They invited her to attend and contribute to an open debate of a committee at the European parliament.

Or, did you not read the article. That is an invite to attend a meeting at the European parliament, no?

Or did they invite her to something else? Coz that's what it says in the article.

The only organisation that can deem whether this is invitation has been made correctly is the EU parliament or the committee itself.

[thelonius]

Would be interesting to know the background story of mr. Broek and why he cares so much.

Most Western democracies take a dim view of military coups taking over friendly countries with whom they have trading arrangements. As the European Parliaments Chairman of Foreign Affairs wouldn't you agree that it was within his remit to seek information about that military takeover?

Or do you go along with the junta view that they have "explained" adequately to Western governments just why a coup was deemed necessary by chuntering on incessantly about their BS "roadmap".

Edited December 14, 2015 by thelonius

[scorecard]

Would be interesting to know the background story of mr. Broek and why he cares so much.

Most Western democracies take a dim view of military coups taking over friendly countries with whom they have trading arrangements. As the European Parliaments Chairman of Foreign Affairs wouldn't you agree that it was within his remit to seek information about that military takeover?

Or do you go along with the junta view that they have "explained" adequately to Western governments just why a coup was deemed necessary by chuntering on incessantly about their BS "roadmap".

And do you honestly believe madam is the right / the most appropriate person to discuss / to provide detailed and insightful information on such matter?

Edited December 14, 2015 by scorecard

[sjaak327]

Would be interesting to know the background story of mr. Broek and why he cares so much.

Most Western democracies take a dim view of military coups taking over friendly countries with whom they have trading arrangements. As the European Parliaments Chairman of Foreign Affairs wouldn't you agree that it was within his remit to seek information about that military takeover?

Or do you go along with the junta view that they have "explained" adequately to Western governments just why a coup was deemed necessary by chuntering on incessantly about their BS "roadmap".

And do you honestly believe madam is the right / the most appropriate person to discuss / to provide detailed and insightful information on such matter?

According to the OP, they have the intention to speak to all parties involved. And yes, that includes Yingluck, whether you like it or not.

[Thai at Heart]

Would be interesting to know the background story of mr. Broek and why he cares so much.

Most Western democracies take a dim view of military coups taking over friendly countries with whom they have trading arrangements. As the European Parliaments Chairman of Foreign Affairs wouldn't you agree that it was within his remit to seek information about that military takeover?

Or do you go along with the junta view that they have "explained" adequately to Western governments just why a coup was deemed necessary by chuntering on incessantly about their BS "roadmap".

And do you honestly believe madam is the right / the most appropriate person to discuss / to provide detailed and insightful information on such matter?

If the issue is gauging the situation about the state of Thai politics, why not.

Beyond that, it's not really up to anyone other than the EU parliament to decide who to invite. Who would you deem a better person to give a so called pro-red opinion?

[rubl]

'Thai at Heart', '...they have invited her to address the parliament': NO, they have not done so, not in their own words at least, so probably only in you fertile imagination?

They invited her to attend and contribute to an open debate of a committee at the European parliament.

Or, did you not read the article. That is an invite to attend a meeting at the European parliament, no?

Or did they invite her to something else? Coz that's what it says in the article.

The only organisation that can deem whether this is invitation has been made correctly is the EU parliament or the committee itself.

I guess you didn't read the two letters?

[rubl]

Would be interesting to know the background story of mr. Broek and why he cares so much.

Most Western democracies take a dim view of military coups taking over friendly countries with whom they have trading arrangements. As the European Parliaments Chairman of Foreign Affairs wouldn't you agree that it was within his remit to seek information about that military takeover?

Or do you go along with the junta view that they have "explained" adequately to Western governments just why a coup was deemed necessary by chuntering on incessantly about their BS "roadmap".

From letter 1

""... we would be pleased if you could accept our invitation to an exchange of views on the situation in Thailand, either in Brussels or in Strasbourg when possible and convenient to you. If this were the case, we are confident that our collaborators would find a convenient arrangement'

Brok & Langen""

From letter 2

""The EP Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Delegation for relations with the ASEAN are following the political situation in Thailand with great concern. As you will remember, we hadve had several exchanges in this context, and we have now invited the former Prime Minister of Thailand, Mrs. Yingluck Shinawatra, to a future exchange.

As a democratic institution, the EP traditionally invites all sides on an equal basis ...

We are therefore willing and ready to continue the discussion with you and/or other representatives of your government. We consider it indeed equally important to listen to the point of view of the representatives of government, be it in Brussels, in Strasbourg or in Bangkok.

...

Brok & Langen"

"

"

[sjaak327]

Must downplay at any cost, even though both the letters and the statement in the OP leave precious little to the imagination. At least it gets the thread going and the post count up. Whilst amusing at first, it now becomes annoying, so I am out of this one.

[Thai at Heart]

'Thai at Heart', '...they have invited her to address the parliament': NO, they have not done so, not in their own words at least, so probably only in you fertile imagination?

They invited her to attend and contribute to an open debate of a committee at the European parliament.

Or, did you not read the article. That is an invite to attend a meeting at the European parliament, no?

Or did they invite her to something else? Coz that's what it says in the article.

The only organisation that can deem whether this is invitation has been made correctly is the EU parliament or the committee itself.

I guess you didn't read the two letters?

Well since you have quoted it for me.....

From letter 1

""... we would be pleased if you could accept our invitation to an exchange of views on the situation in Thailand, either in Brussels or in Strasbourg when possible and convenient to you. If this were the case, we are confident that our collaborators would find a convenient arrangement'

Brok & Langen""

From letter 2

""The EP Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Delegation for relations with the ASEAN are following the political situation in Thailand with great concern. As you will remember, we hadve had several exchanges in this context, and we have now invited the former Prime Minister of Thailand, Mrs. Yingluck Shinawatra, to a future exchange.

Which bit of this doesn't constitute an invitation?

[rubl]

They invited her to attend and contribute to an open debate of a committee at the European parliament.

Or, did you not read the article. That is an invite to attend a meeting at the European parliament, no?

Or did they invite her to something else? Coz that's what it says in the article.

The only organisation that can deem whether this is invitation has been made correctly is the EU parliament or the committee itself.

I guess you didn't read the two letters?

Well since you have quoted it for me.....

From letter 1

""... we would be pleased if you could accept our invitation to an exchange of views on the situation in Thailand, either in Brussels or in Strasbourg when possible and convenient to you. If this were the case, we are confident that our collaborators would find a convenient arrangement'

Brok & Langen""

From letter 2

""The EP Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Delegation for relations with the ASEAN are following the political situation in Thailand with great concern. As you will remember, we hadve had several exchanges in this context, and we have now invited the former Prime Minister of Thailand, Mrs. Yingluck Shinawatra, to a future exchange.

Which bit of this doesn't constitute an invitation?

Excuses, terribly sorry and all that. I missed you had "at the European parliament", although only Brussels and Strasbourg are named rather than the EP premises. Furthermore collaborators would still need to find a convenient arrangement. Mind you in a post before you did write "they have invited her to address the parliament."

Also there still no invitation to attend and contribute to a meeting. It's an invitation to an 'exchange of views'. I guess strictly speaking the CFA may have restrictions on who may be present during their meetings.

[bangrak]

'Thai at Heart', '...they have invited her to address the parliament': NO, they have not done so, not in their own words at least, so probably only in you fertile imagination?

They invited her to attend and contribute to an open debate of a committee at the European parliament.

Or, did you not read the article. That is an invite to attend a meeting at the European parliament, no?

Or did they invite her to something else? Coz that's what it says in the article.

The only organisation that can deem whether this is invitation has been made correctly is the EU parliament or the committee itself.

I guess you didn't read the two letters?

Right so, 'rubi', 'There is no worse blind than the one who does not want to see', sad for 'Thai at Heart', 'sjaak327' and consorts, it's not they don't get it, it's they can't admit they were wrong, the truth hurts sometimes...

How could we trust such people in an openminded exchange of, personal, opinions, you tell me...

[sjaak327]

'Thai at Heart', '...they have invited her to address the parliament': NO, they have not done so, not in their own words at least, so probably only in you fertile imagination?

They invited her to attend and contribute to an open debate of a committee at the European parliament.

Or, did you not read the article. That is an invite to attend a meeting at the European parliament, no?

Or did they invite her to something else? Coz that's what it says in the article.

The only organisation that can deem whether this is invitation has been made correctly is the EU parliament or the committee itself.

I guess you didn't read the two letters?

Right so, 'rubi', 'There is no worse blind than the one who does not want to see', sad for 'Thai at Heart', 'sjaak327' and consorts, it's not they don't get it, it's they can't admit they were wrong, the truth hurts sometimes...

How could we trust such people in an openminded exchange of, personal, opinions, you tell me...

Hmm, pray tell how I am wrong ? I have quoted the OP, the OP is a statement made by the two gentlemen and has been published by numerous news agencies around the world. If you have any evidence that the OP is wrong let's have it. As it stands, the Op is specific in it's wording and hence we are anything but wrong.

But I do understand the need to downplay this, I hate to say it, but it sure looks like you have an agenda here, possibly one that makes you a bit of money.

In any case, a link to the statement which is fully in line with the OP here:

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

Edited December 14, 2015 by sjaak327

[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...

Because it isn't for the Thais, or us, to say what the true protocol is or isn't, and as they have reiterated again, they have invited her to address the parliament.

It is for the parliament to tell the MPs sending the invite whether they have broken protocol and no one else.

Hmm, you assume the EP, so including the whole tribe of 749 other MEPs, are the least bit aware of what these two pulled, do you? OK, then, no further question...

[sjaak327]

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...

Because it isn't for the Thais, or us, to say what the true protocol is or isn't, and as they have reiterated again, they have invited her to address the parliament.

It is for the parliament to tell the MPs sending the invite whether they have broken protocol and no one else.

Hmm, you assume the EP, so including the whole tribe of 749 other MEPs, are the least bit aware of what these two pulled, do you? OK, then, no further question...

Quote from the OP and from the statement which is linked here:

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

"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."

If you have any more verifiable information I am all ears.

[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.

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...

Because it isn't for the Thais, or us, to say what the true protocol is or isn't, and as they have reiterated again, they have invited her to address the parliament.

It is for the parliament to tell the MPs sending the invite whether they have broken protocol and no one else.

Hmm, you assume the EP, so including the whole tribe of 749 other MEPs, are the least bit aware of what these two pulled, do you? OK, then, no further question...

Well, its in the bloody papers isn't it. It isn't a committee of 2, is it......You think 2 MEPs would open themselves to censure from the EP for improper behaviour? I suggest we wait until the EP conducts any investigation if there is even any case to answer.

Until the EP declares that this invite isn't kosher, the only explanation that can be given to it, is that they are well within their rights to extend the invitation. Which has now been done twice, the second time, fairly clearly, even admonishing the Thai media and others for suggesting it wasn't a proper invite. I would suggest that if they were bluffing, they would have let sleeping dogs lie.

[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...

Because it isn't for the Thais, or us, to say what the true protocol is or isn't, and as they have reiterated again, they have invited her to address the parliament.

It is for the parliament to tell the MPs sending the invite whether they have broken protocol and no one else.

You're probably a nice guy, and it is not given to everyone to have some sense and knowledge of protocol and form, in the EP, elsewhere in the EU, or more generally at government level, that doesn't make your, personal, opinions any less valuable than mine, but please, accept that other people might have, a bit, of that knowledge you miss...

Let's phase totally out of the topic, shall we, and just look at a silly little bit of 'form': even with your lack of knowledge, imagine you're merely a little cog in a big political machine like the EP, would you put it in your, even inflated, brains to start a letter you want to address to 'His Excellency the Ambassador of the Kingdom of Thailand to...', with ...'dear Ambassador'? Not sure Mr Schutz, the EP President, would do so, maybe a Minister of Foreign Affairs (what boorish Brok is by no means) in a letter part of an ongoing correspondance with an Ambassador he would have developped personal friendly relations with, and still... the then appropriate form would be the regular one, followed by, on the next line: Dear John, f.i. I can understand this is all very remote from you, but this is still the right, and only accepted, way nowadays. May it please you, or not.

Except when you'd ask for it, no 'hair splitting', I won't de-construct the text of both letters for you proving there's something wrong about these, mind you, it could also be that at the EP the (sub-)commissions' chairs would have been authorized to hire their mia-nois as private secretary, what I am not aware of...

[sjaak327]

Hmm, so we are back to proper protocol now are we.

I would suggest taking it up with the persons directly if you believe they haven't followed proper protocol and leave the rest of us with the information shared to us by various news media, which I trust a tiny bit more than you if you don't mind.

By the way, I don't think that you are following proper protocol either, in the way you addressed Thai at Heart. But I guess that would be considered attacking the poster right ?

Edited December 14, 2015 by sjaak327

[rubl]

Interesting that the contents of the two letters signed by Brok/Langen is mostly ignored whereas descriptions in newspapers are seen as defining.

[sjaak327]

Interesting that the contents of the two letters signed by Brok/Langen is mostly ignored whereas descriptions in newspapers are seen as defining.

That is because it is a statement by the gentlemen concerned and because that statement IS the topic ! I understand it doesn't support your take on the subject, but that doesn't suddenly make it irrelevant. By the way, they have also commented on the notion that the first letter was just a 'personal invitation' and have stated that the notion is incorrect.

[Blossom3]

Normally 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' ?

[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.

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...

Because it isn't for the Thais, or us, to say what the true protocol is or isn't, and as they have reiterated again, they have invited her to address the parliament.

It is for the parliament to tell the MPs sending the invite whether they have broken protocol and no one else.

You're probably a nice guy, and it is not given to everyone to have some sense and knowledge of protocol and form, in the EP, elsewhere in the EU, or more generally at government level, that doesn't make your, personal, opinions any less valuable than mine, but please, accept that other people might have, a bit, of that knowledge you miss...

Let's phase totally out of the topic, shall we, and just look at a silly little bit of 'form': even with your lack of knowledge, imagine you're merely a little cog in a big political machine like the EP, would you put it in your, even inflated, brains to start a letter you want to address to 'His Excellency the Ambassador of the Kingdom of Thailand to...', with ...'dear Ambassador'? Not sure Mr Schutz, the EP President, would do so, maybe a Minister of Foreign Affairs (what boorish Brok is by no means) in a letter part of an ongoing correspondance with an Ambassador he would have developped personal friendly relations with, and still... the then appropriate form would be the regular one, followed by, on the next line: Dear John, f.i. I can understand this is all very remote from you, but this is still the right, and only accepted, way nowadays. May it please you, or not.

Except when you'd ask for it, no 'hair splitting', I won't de-construct the text of both letters for you proving there's something wrong about these, mind you, it could also be that at the EP the (sub-)commissions' chairs would have been authorized to hire their mia-nois as private secretary, what I am not aware of...

He wrote it to her. She's not an MP anymore. I am not sure she even has a title..

Your statement is irrelevant. It's on headed paper, addressed to her. She's not a govt anybody any more.

Does she have a title?

Dear Miss Yingluck Shinawatra. DEPOSED PM?

COUP OUSTED PM

What title would you like to give her.??

He said it's an invite. So it's an invite, until the organisation he represents says it isn't. He could send it by carrier pigeon on tissue paper. As long as he signs it, and gives a purpose he is entitled to give it, it's an invite.

You are accusing him of abusing his position. Take it up with the EU court to clarify, but until they deny it, it's an invite.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Thai at Heart

[bangrak]

'Thai at Heart', you can go on, with 'sjaak327', 'thelonius' and consorts, till kingdom come when you want, with your attempts to 'drown the fish': there was no 'EU invite', that was a fabrication, ...a 'red herring'!

That's what it was about in the first place, and also what it ends with. Period.

(I wasted too much time on this with you guys, 'one can lead the donkey to the watering-place, but one cannot make it drink'...)