EP's foreign affairs chairman reiterates invitation to Yingluck important

[Thai at Heart]

'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'...)

You say a letter coming from an office of the EU parliament is a fabrication? You seriously believe a MEP made a fictitious request for someone to attend the European parliament.

In which case, I would suggest we all call the ombudsman for conduct of MEP and complain. Do you realise what you are saying? That is a hell of an accusation....

[sjaak327]

'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'...)

You say a letter coming from an office of the EU parliament is a fabrication? You seriously believe a MEP made a fictitious request for someone to attend the European parliament.

In which case, I would suggest we all call the ombudsman for conduct of MEP and complain. Do you realise what you are saying? That is a hell of an accusation....

He is just determined to downplay this. The rest of the world simply reads the press and doesn't try to imply that those doing the actual invite don't follow protocol or don't belong to the EP or somehow suddenly don't talk on behalf of the EP and their respective committees. Quite silly to even try to imply this. He must think we are all a bunch of idiots.

[rubl]

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.

The OP has the text from the EP CFA website. The note also mentions the two letters. The two letters are the 'formal' part. It would seem the first letter so dubious that a second letter was deemed required. Mind you first letter talks about an invitation in Brussels/Strasbourg if possible and convenient, the second letter only mentioned the invitation. Only on the website it is mentioned that it's important and should be 'at the earliest'. The two letters are official in the sense that they have a reference number which should be recording in the CFA administration, even if only the first letter is dated ( 1st: D(2015)45562 07-10-2015, 2nd: D(2015)56649 ) . The website pages have no such legal value and may (frequently) change.

The OP (and website) has

"In a letter to the Thai ambassador to Belgium and Luxembourg Nopadol Gunavibool, Mr Brok said in the name of his Committee, and ASEAN Delegation chairman Dr Werner Langen, they stressed the importance of having an exchange of views with former Prime Minister of Thailand Ms Yingluck Shinawatra in a meeting at the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Delegation for relations with the ASEAN at the earliest."

but the letter to the Thai Ambassador doesn't mention importance nor urgency. As such the remark on the website page (and therefore the copy in the OP) is incorrect.

Even Ms. Yingluck may not have understood that 'at the earliest' as only after seven weeks she finally petitioned a court.

BTW did you notice that the second letter sent to the Thai Ambassador mentions both Mrs. Yingluck Shinawatra as well as Ms. Yingluck Shinawatra? The first letter has 'Khun' and starts with Madam.

Of course, if the Netherlands government would send you an 'invitation' to pay tax, or a likable letter from the Justice Department that you've been photographed driving too fast, you or your legal representative would (correctly) point at any typing error as possible procedure fault requiring a possible case to be dropped.

PS assuming sequence numbers in the document reference that's more than 11,000 possible documents, in less than two months time. Really busy that committee.

Edited December 15, 2015 by rubl

[rubl]

'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'...)

You say a letter coming from an office of the EU parliament is a fabrication? You seriously believe a MEP made a fictitious request for someone to attend the European parliament.

In which case, I would suggest we all call the ombudsman for conduct of MEP and complain. Do you realise what you are saying? That is a hell of an accusation....

He is just determined to downplay this. The rest of the world simply reads the press and doesn't try to imply that those doing the actual invite don't follow protocol or don't belong to the EP or somehow suddenly don't talk on behalf of the EP and their respective committees. Quite silly to even try to imply this. He must think we are all a bunch of idiots.

Absolutely!!

There is 'no EU invite', there is no E.C. invite. After the second letter and the additional explanation on the Committees website we know that the invite is from one and possibly two chairmen from EP committees.

[sjaak327]

'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'...)

You say a letter coming from an office of the EU parliament is a fabrication? You seriously believe a MEP made a fictitious request for someone to attend the European parliament.

In which case, I would suggest we all call the ombudsman for conduct of MEP and complain. Do you realise what you are saying? That is a hell of an accusation....

He is just determined to downplay this. The rest of the world simply reads the press and doesn't try to imply that those doing the actual invite don't follow protocol or don't belong to the EP or somehow suddenly don't talk on behalf of the EP and their respective committees. Quite silly to even try to imply this. He must think we are all a bunch of idiots.

Absolutely!!

There is 'no EU invite', there is no E.C. invite. After the second letter and the additional explanation on the Committees website we know that the invite is from one and possibly two chairmen from EP committees.

And these two don't invite on behalf of the EP right rubl. Despite the pretty specific text in the OP, surely I don't have to re quote the text again right. Just as those two gentlemen shouldn't have been required to reiterate their invitation, the first letter left little to the imagination. Except for Junta supporters such as yourself of course...

People that do read between the lines and are not clouded by some strange bias, got the message the first time !

For people such as you, the two were kind enough to not only reiterate the invitation but even making clear the impressions after the first letter were incorrect. Yet still you don't seem to get the message. Stick your head in the sand, that way you are ignorant of the big bad world around you.

[rubl]

You say a letter coming from an office of the EU parliament is a fabrication? You seriously believe a MEP made a fictitious request for someone to attend the European parliament.

In which case, I would suggest we all call the ombudsman for conduct of MEP and complain. Do you realise what you are saying? That is a hell of an accusation....

He is just determined to downplay this. The rest of the world simply reads the press and doesn't try to imply that those doing the actual invite don't follow protocol or don't belong to the EP or somehow suddenly don't talk on behalf of the EP and their respective committees. Quite silly to even try to imply this. He must think we are all a bunch of idiots.

Absolutely!!

There is 'no EU invite', there is no E.C. invite. After the second letter and the additional explanation on the Committees website we know that the invite is from one and possibly two chairmen from EP committees.

And these two don't invite on behalf of the EP right rubl. Despite the pretty specific text in the OP, surely I don't have to re quote the text again right. Just as those two gentlemen shouldn't have been required to reiterate their invitation, the first letter left little to the imagination. Except for Junta supporters such as yourself of course...

People that do read between the lines and are not clouded by some strange bias, got the message the first time !

For people such as you, the two were kind enough to not only reiterate the invitation but even making clear the impressions after the first letter were incorrect. Yet still you don't seem to get the message. Stick your head in the sand, that way you are ignorant of the big bad world around you.

For people such as you?

You mean you do not expect MEPs to be a wee bit more specific and accurate in their official correspondence and believe every word you read on their website? You believe these two gentlemen have the authority to invite on behalf of the EP?

As for sticking ones head in the sand, you seem to be doing such by ignoring the contents of the two letters. There's much suggested, but less expressed. If a webpage paragraph is needed to clarify the letter which clarifies the first letter, I'm really wondering about EP bureaucrats and MEPs.

[sjaak327]

And these two don't invite on behalf of the EP right rubl. Despite the pretty specific text in the OP, surely I don't have to re quote the text again right. Just as those two gentlemen shouldn't have been required to reiterate their invitation, the first letter left little to the imagination. Except for Junta supporters such as yourself of course...

People that do read between the lines and are not clouded by some strange bias, got the message the first time !

For people such as you, the two were kind enough to not only reiterate the invitation but even making clear the impressions after the first letter were incorrect. Yet still you don't seem to get the message. Stick your head in the sand, that way you are ignorant of the big bad world around you.

For people such as you?

You mean you do not expect MEPs to be a wee bit more specific and accurate in their official correspondence and believe every word you read on their website? You believe these two gentlemen have the authority to invite on behalf of the EP?

As for sticking ones head in the sand, you seem to be doing such by ignoring the contents of the two letters. There's much suggested, but less expressed. If a webpage paragraph is needed to clarify the letter which clarifies the first letter, I'm really wondering about EP bureaucrats and MEPs.

They were specific. But you choose to ignore their words in the OP. Amazing considering it's those words that are being discussed here. I am not ignoring the content of the two letters. They at no time gave the impressions that this was a private exchange. Remember Rubl, the EP being mentioned specifically. The press correctly put out headlines to that effect, and the second letter + the statement confirms they got it right the first time.

Why mention the EP if the invite has nothing to do with the EP. the answer is relatively simple of course.

In any case, please take it up with the EP when you believe they aren't specific or clear enough. The press and most other people got the message the first time.

[rubl]

And these two don't invite on behalf of the EP right rubl. Despite the pretty specific text in the OP, surely I don't have to re quote the text again right. Just as those two gentlemen shouldn't have been required to reiterate their invitation, the first letter left little to the imagination. Except for Junta supporters such as yourself of course...

People that do read between the lines and are not clouded by some strange bias, got the message the first time !

For people such as you, the two were kind enough to not only reiterate the invitation but even making clear the impressions after the first letter were incorrect. Yet still you don't seem to get the message. Stick your head in the sand, that way you are ignorant of the big bad world around you.

For people such as you?

You mean you do not expect MEPs to be a wee bit more specific and accurate in their official correspondence and believe every word you read on their website? You believe these two gentlemen have the authority to invite on behalf of the EP?

As for sticking ones head in the sand, you seem to be doing such by ignoring the contents of the two letters. There's much suggested, but less expressed. If a webpage paragraph is needed to clarify the letter which clarifies the first letter, I'm really wondering about EP bureaucrats and MEPs.

They were specific. But you choose to ignore their words in the OP. Amazing considering it's those words that are being discussed here. I am not ignoring the content of the two letters. They at no time gave the impressions that this was a private exchange. Remember Rubl, the EP being mentioned specifically. The press correctly put out headlines to that effect, and the second letter + the statement confirms they got it right the first time.

Why mention the EP if the invite has nothing to do with the EP. the answer is relatively simple of course.

In any case, please take it up with the EP when you believe they aren't specific or clear enough. The press and most other people got the message the first time.

Why mention the EP and follow with 'we' and sign Brok/Langen ?

That's suggestion. Mention the EP and follow with 'we' as if you speak on behalf of the EP.

As for the press, I mailed a nicely formulated question to [email protected], one of the news sites my dear friend thelonius came with. No answer yet, but then I only mailed on the 6th this month and they have no obligation to answer.

Taking things up with the EP? Why? If I was to take it up it would be with the Committee on Foreign Affairs addressing their chairman, or the committees secretary. One question would be why their website needs to clarify with 'important' and 'at the earliest' when none of the two official letters gave any such indication. I might also ask the registered date for the second letter as it's missing. Sloppy indeed. A good lawyer would make mince meat out of them with the blessing of the European Courts who like the government to be very precise in their communication.