Theresa Mayの道筋が見えない強気と、アイルランド・北アイルランドの国境問題が思いのほか大問題でにっちもさっちも行かなくなり、政府のEU離脱案がHouse of Commonsで大差で否決されてしまった。考えれば考えるほど、EU離脱の代償は大きいように思われる。

Brexit: Theresa May’s deal is voted down in historic Commons defeat

MPs voted by 432 votes to 202 to reject the deal, which sets out the terms of Britain’s exit from the EU on 29 March.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has now tabled a vote of no confidence in the government, which could trigger a general election.

The confidence vote is expected to be held at about 1900 GMT on Wednesday.

The defeat is a huge blow for Mrs May, who has spent more than two years hammering out a deal with the EU.

The plan was aimed at bringing about an orderly departure from the EU on 29 March, and setting up a 21-month transition period to negotiate a free trade deal.

The UK is still on course to leave on 29 March but the defeat throws the manner of that departure – and the timing of it – into further doubt.

MPs who want either a further referendum, a softer version of the Brexit proposed by Mrs May, to stop Brexit altogether or to leave without a deal, will ramp up their efforts to get what they want, as a weakened PM offered to listen to their arguments.

Pro- and anti-Brexit protesters outside Parliament in London on Tuesday. Lawmakers debated for six hours ahead of the vote on Prime Minister Theresa May’s plan.CreditDaniel Leal-Olivas/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

By Stephen Castle and Ellen Barry   NYT Jan. 15, 2019

LONDON — Prime Minister Theresa May on Tuesday suffered a humiliating defeat over her plan to withdraw Britain from the European Union, thrusting the country further into political chaos with only 10 weeks to go until it is scheduled to leave the bloc.

The 432-to-202 vote to reject her proposal was the biggest defeat in the House of Commons for a prime minister in recent British history. And it underscores how comprehensively Mrs. May has failed to build consensus behind any single vision of how to exit the European Union.

Now factions in Parliament will offer their own proposals — setting off a new, unpredictable stage in Brexit, the process of withdrawing from the bloc.

“She has completely lost control of the process, and her version of Brexit must now be dead, if she loses by 230 votes,” said John Springford, deputy director of the Center for European Reform, a London-based research institute.

Negotiating the withdrawal from the European Union — which 52 percent of British voters, or 17.4 million people, supported in a referendum in 2016 — has been Mrs. May’s single focus since she became prime minister, displacing social problems like housing and health care.

But her failure to convey any convincing vision of Britain’s future outside the European Union has allowed painful divisions in the country to deepen.


Prime Minister Theresa May called the vote “a historic decision that will set the future of our country for generations.”CreditJessica Taylor/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
And it has created a risk that Britain will exit the 28-nation European bloc with no deal, which analysts have warned could tip Britain into recession and trigger shortages of food, medicine and electricity because of constraints on trade.

Mrs. May’s plan would ultimately have given Britain’s government power over immigration from Europe, and would have kept Britain in the European Union’s customs and trade system until at least the end of 2020 while a long-term pact is negotiated.

Immediately after the vote against her proposal, the Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, citing the “sheer incompetence of this government,” called for a vote of no confidence in Mrs. May, which will be debated on Wednesday.

That could in theory lead to a general election, but few analysts said they thought he could muster the necessary votes.

European Union officials, who have been waiting for Britain to resolve its plan, were muted in an official statement, though exasperated on Twitter.

“If a deal is impossible, and no one wants no deal, then who will finally have the courage to say what the only positive solution is?” Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, wrote in a Twitter post.

Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission, said on Twitter: “I urge the U.K. to clarify its intentions as soon as possible. Time is almost up.”

May’s Brexit Deal Just Failed. What Happens Now?Nobody knows, really. But these are the likeliest scenarios.Jan. 15, 2019

Before the vote, Mrs. May and her supporters were urging lawmakers in both the Conservative and Labour Parties to resolve the stalemate and back her plan, saying that a vote in favor would put country before party.

In her final appeal in Parliament, Mrs. May, a Conservative, impressed on lawmakers the importance of the vote facing them.

“The responsibility on each and every one of us at this moment is profound,” she said, “for this is a historic decision that will set the future of our country for generations.”

Like most others, though, the prime minister had no easy answers about the way forward. She has signaled that she will appeal to the European Union in Brussels for more concessions and try again to win parliamentary approval, but the bloc is unlikely to grant her any concessions unless she has a convincing new plan.

After the vote, Mrs. May said she would allow members of Parliament to debate the various Brexit plans being bandied about.

Mr. Springford of the Center for European Reform said that if Parliament coalesced around a clear proposal for the future, Mrs. May could try to negotiate such a result with the European Union.

But to win Labour Party support, any new proposal would likely be a so-called softer Brexit that would keep closer economic ties to the European Union.

Mr. Corbyn would then be on the spot, forced to decide whether to work with Mrs. May on Brexit or bow to pressure from within his party for a second referendum.

“I think it’s now between a softer Brexit and a second referendum,” Mr. Springford said.

Still, with no consensus behind any one path, and a vanishing window for further negotiation, more radical solutions are rising to the fore.

One group of lawmakers is campaigning for a repeat referendum, which could potentially reverse the decision to leave the European Union. Another favors leaving the bloc as planned on March 29 without a withdrawal agreement, a so-called hard Brexit.

Mrs. May had expected to lose Tuesday’s critical vote, having lost the support of many of her own lawmakers. But her surrogates scrambled up to the moment of the vote to rally lawmakers to her side in hopes of keeping the margin of loss narrow enough. That would have allowed her to try again for parliamentary approval.

Before the vote, the attorney general, Geoffrey Cox, raked his eyes over the backbenches of the Commons and rebuked Parliament, in a booming voice, for contemplating a sudden and unregulated end to 45 years of integration with Europe.

Exhorting his fellow Conservatives to get behind Mrs. May’s plan, Mr. Cox asked: “What are you playing at? What are you doing? You are not children in the playground. You are legislators, and it is your job. We are playing with people’s lives.”

He continued, rolling his Rs in theatrical fashion, “Do we opt for order? Or do we choose chaos?”

The environment secretary, Michael Gove, was equally dramatic in a morning radio interview, warning lawmakers that “if we don’t vote for this deal tonight, in the words of Jon Snow, winter is coming,” a reference to “Game of Thrones.”

No Heat for 10 Years, and the City Is Their Landlord

Watching the Brexit vote at a pub in London.CreditAndy Rain/EPA, via Shutterstock

But critics of the deal were equally adamant, saying Mrs. May had emerged from two years of negotiations with an agreement that satisfied no one.

Dominic Raab, who stepped down as Mrs. May’s Brexit secretary in November, described her agreement as “wracked with self-doubt, defeatism and fear.”

“This deal before us can’t end the grinding process — it can only prolong it,” Mr. Raab said. “It would torment us and our European neighbors for the foreseeable future.”

Under normal circumstances, a British prime minister would be expected to resign after losing a vote on a flagship policy. But the Brexit process has so unsettled political conventions that Mrs. May could survive to make revisions and pitch her deal again.

In December, Mrs. May survived a leadership challenge in her own Conservative Party and, under its rules, is safe from another until the end of the year.

“We have been in extraordinary circumstances,” said Nikki da Costa, a former director of legal affairs at 10 Downing Street. “Things that in normal times would not be considered survivable have become normalized. What the government would be looking for is a pathway through this.”

Ms. Da Costa predicted: “We will be doing this again in a couple of weeks’ time.”

Philip Cowley, a professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London, said he was struggling to identify a comparable defeat in the history of British politics.

“When you ask me for a historical benchmark, I can’t find any example,” Mr. Cowley said.

朝日新聞1/18
1/31 Asahi 女王もたまらず・・・

Brexit 1

Top Pageへ

16 December 2018 at 8:26am

Where do former UK prime ministers stand on the Brexit issue?
All four of Theresa May's most recent predecessors joined her in voting Remain in the referendum.
All four of Theresa May’s most recent predecessors joined her in voting Remain in the referendum. Credit: PA

Theresa May has accused Tony Blair of “insulting” the British people and the office of prime minister by “undermining” Brexit talks with calls for a second referendum.

The Prime Minister said there are “too many people who want to subvert the process for their own political interests” and warned a second referendum would amount to Parliament abdicating responsibility.

After Mrs May’s stinging rebuke of her predecessor, here is a look at how former British prime ministers view Brexit:

David Cameron

David Cameron set the wheels in motion
David Cameron set the wheels in motion  Credit: Hannah McKay/PA

Mrs May’s old boss triggered the referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU and campaigned for Remain.

After losing the historic vote, Mr Cameron swiftly left Number 10, quit as an MP and has remained virtually absent from the ensuing debate over Brexit.

Earlier this month, he said he did not regret calling the referendum, adding: “Obviously I’m very concerned about what’s happening today but I do support the Prime Minister in her efforts to try and have a close partnership with the European Union.”

Gordon Brown

Former prime minister Gordon Brown sees another referendum as the answer
Former prime minister Gordon Brown sees another referendum as the answer  Credit: Nick Ansell/PA

Brexit has left the country divided and led to a breakdown of trust within the electorate, according to Mr Blair’s successor.

Furthermore, allegations of betrayal risk creating a “poisonous and toxic atmosphere” that could be exploited by populists.

In October, Mr Brown predicted a future referendum on Brexit will take place.

He said if Britain leaves the EU without a deal in March 2019 but with, as he expects, an extended transition period retaining some aspects of membership, the next general election will be fought on Europe.

Tony Blair

Tony Blair has made no secret of his desire to remain in Europe
Tony Blair has made no secret of his desire to remain in Europe  Credit: Stefan Rousseau/PA

The Labour heavyweight drew Mrs May’s ire after saying the Prime Minister must stop “banging (her) head against this brick wall” and go for a second referendum.

He said the country had been “held hostage” by division in the Tories, but said the issue was such that it would not make any difference if it was a Labour or Conservative government “or a divine government” running the negotiations.

Mr Blair described the “disentangling” process of Brexit as “hideously complex” and said all options of leaving the EU have “significant drawbacks” compared with staying in.

Sir John Major

Sir John Major also had to deal with the issue of Europe splitting the Tories
Sir John Major also had to deal with the issue of Europe splitting the Tories  Credit: Scott Heppell/PA

No stranger to the challenge posed to Tory leaders by Euroceptic MPs, Sir John has made several interventions on the issue.

As a former PM all too familiar with the realities of unrest in Northern Ireland, he has called for the immediate revocation of the Article 50 withdrawal process in order to give politicians on all sides time to work through the “morass”.

Sir John has also warned that Brexiteers responsible for persuading the British public to leave the European Union will never be forgiven for their “false promises”.Last updated Sun 16 Dec 2018

17 December 2018 at 10:19am

Theresa May invites David Cameron to backseat drive on Brexit

PESTON’S POLITICS ROBERT PESTON

Mrs May's predecessor David Cameron is advising her how to get some kind route out of the EU through parliament.
Mrs May’s predecessor David Cameron is advising her how to get some kind route out of the EU through parliament.  Credit: PA

If you want a symbol of the catastrophe Theresa May faces over Brexit here it is: her predecessor David Cameron is advising her how to get some kind route out of the EU – that isn’t the fast one over the cliff – through parliament.

This is like the pope asking the chief rabbi on the true meaning of the Eucharist: when Theresa May became prime minister she defined herself by defenestrating all things and people of a Cameroonish hue (including, most notoriously – and some would argue most self-destructively – packing Osborne off to the backbenches).

But now the former prime minister has become her personal Brexit-crisis adviser, as she desperately tries to prevent the UK crashing out of the EU with a chaotic no deal.

Mrs May's predecessor David Cameron is advising her how to get some kind route out of the EU
Mrs May’s predecessor David Cameron is advising her how to get some kind route out of the EU. Credit: PA

Mr Cameron’s advice is conspicuously being taken, at this juncture by her ministers if not publicly by her. 

Because what he told her – I understand – is that she should “get on with getting parliament to work through the options”.

You will have heard the Business Secretary Greg Clark just this morning become the latest member of the Cabinet to say on the Today Programme that the time is almost nigh to press MPs (possibly through an innovative process of holding advisory votes on different options) to express their collective views on what kind of Brexit (or potentially no Brexit, via a referendum) they would choose.

When Theresa May became prime minister she defined herself by defenestrating all things and people of a Cameroonish hue.
When Theresa May became prime minister she defined herself by defenestrating all things and people of a Cameroonish hue. Credit: PA

Mr Cameron has made it clear – according to my source – that “she has to help parliament find an answer, recognising that she doesn’t have a majority”.

This of course is reinforcing the pressure on her from her senior backbenchers like Nicky Morgan to put party allegiances to one side in the search for a way through the impasse.

And what kind of Brexit would Mr Cameron himself favour?

Well she is listening to him partly because he has privately endorsed her “partnership” approach to the UK’s long-term relationship with the EU. 

This would be either her Brexit plan, which a majority of MPs detest, or an amended version (which the EU comprehensively squished on Thursday) or some version of the arrangement Norway has with the EU.

So Mr Cameron is – as you would expect – a proponent of what Michael Gove would see as the best Brexit available and Jacob Rees-Mogg would view as BRINO (Brexit in name only) serfdom.

And if MPs won’t back any Brexit plan? Would Mr Cameron suggest she put the BIG question back to the people with a so-called People’s Vote?

My source conspicuously dodges when pressed. 

That said, Mr Cameron probably knows better than to opine on plebiscitary matters, since if he hadn’t decided on the original poll, she wouldn’t be in her quandary today and he’d still be in a job.Last updated Mon 17 Dec 2018.



Top Pageへ

 第二次大戦中の日本と韓国の問題では、国家間の紛争処理は一応の解決を見たとはいえ、個人が受けた被害を誰が補償すべきかについては別のいろいろな問題があり、世界の民主主義に関する諸議論の趨勢により、考え方が変わることも当然ある。
 日本企業に徴用された韓国の人々が裁判により補償を求めたことに、日本政府、企業、一部市民は批判的だが、かつて原爆の被害を日本政府に訴えた日本人に対し、日本政府は「原因を作った米国政府に訴えるのが筋だ」と言ったという。(実行したかどうか、聞いたことがないが。。。。)また、韓国に資産を残した日本人が補償を日本政府に求めた際は「韓国政府に請求すべき」と言ったという。
 どのように、解決されるのだろうか?

Japan still struggles to escape its wartime past

South Korean court revives disputes that should have been settled long ago

Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has the power to act boldly in addressing the country’s wartime past.   © Reuters
Memories may fade, but history does not die away so easily, especially when competing versions of the past are at stake.
So, it is hardly a surprise that Japan’s controversial Second World War record has once more been thrust into the limelight.
In the latest development, on Oct. 30, the South Korean Supreme Court ordered Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal, two Japanese manufacturing companies active in the war, to pay $88,000 each to four Koreans as compensation for unpaid work between 1941 and 1943.Far from trying to defuse the situation, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe immediately rejected the ruling, called it “impossible under international law.”
When a quiet response might have reaped results — and won time for reflection — Abe pledged to hang tough, saying Tokyo “will handle this situation with firmness.”
Japan argues that a 1965 Tokyo-Seoul treaty covers all manner of past sins. It normalized bilateral relations tainted by 35 years of colonial rule in Korea from 1910 to 1945. From Tokyo’s standpoint, all issues concerning wartime labor were resolved 53 years ago and it is time Asia moved on.
Fair or not, that narrative is not traveling or aging well. If a court ruling involving four people (three of whom are dead) makes Abe and other Japanese nationalists squirm, imagine what lies in store if more Korean claimants pile in. Or if Chinese victims of Japanese rule again make their voices heard with Beijing egging them on.
Nor, unfortunately for Tokyo, is concern about Japan’s wartime past limited to Northeast Asia. In the U.S., for example, Korean-Americans, are becoming quite skilled at hitting a particularly sensitive target: wartime “comfort women.” Last month, Osaka ended its sister city relationship with San Francisco over a monument to wartime sex slaves — a description not accepted by Japan.
With Tokyo still unable to reconcile its historical narrative with those of countries that it once occupied, the arguments will continue to cast an awkward shadow over present-day Japan, and Abe’s efforts to reassert Japan’s international influence.
Abe may technically be correct to argue that the 1965 treaty was final, but the law often does not have the last word in these painful historical disputes. Public pressure forced German companies to pay compensation to wartime forced laborers in the 1990s, long after the German government signed similar government-to-government agreements.
Moreover, Japan will be under particular international scrutiny over the next two years as it stages two global events important for its soft power — the 2019 Rugby World Cup and 2020 Summer Olympics.
If Abe’s team handles the Seoul court setback badly, it could create a fresh opening for international debate over World War II questions Tokyo would prefer see closed.
Bashing the neighbors for domestic gain is a tried-and-true North Asian strategy. It could reemerge given how both South Korean president Moon and Chinese leader Xi Jinping find themselves in precarious situations at home.
Moon faces a slowing economy and growing anger over his preoccupation with North Korean detente. While an important endeavor, Moon was elected in May 2017 to rein in the excesses of family-owned conglomerates and pivot to a “trickle-up” economic model. Moon’s neglect of major reforms is depressing support for his administration. What better way than rally enthusiasm than bashing Japan?
Moon’s left-leaning government earlier upended the 2015 comfort women deal Abe forged with his predecessor Park Geun-hye. Moon claimed a vast majority of Koreans “cannot emotionally accept” a deal many felt lacked sincerity — or teeth, given the paltry 1 billion yen ($8.8 million) provided for a victims’ fund.
We will see how Moon’s party plays the issue going forward. One potential flashpoint: next year’s 100th anniversary of the so-called March First Movement. Moon has set up a task force to plan the commemoration of a historic uprising against Japan’s annexation.
But it is high time Japan raised its diplomatic game. For starters, Tokyo should accept the Korean Supreme Court ruling rather than lashing out as if an international body can intervene and overturn the judgment. Japan needs to realize, as Germany has long done, that below the legal element, these controversies have huge emotional and political depths.
My point here is not to compare Imperial Japan’s leaders with Adolf Hitler’s Nazis. But the historic tensions are getting in the way of the future. Something has been terribly lost in translation. Japan’s government feels it clearly and adequately atoned for the 1930s and 1940s. Yet the outside world has never quite warmed to that position.
The problem, says Jeff Kingston, director of Asian studies at Temple University Japan, is Tokyo’s “been there, done that” approach.
Abe hardly seems ideal for finding new ways to reconciliation. His obsession with a “beautiful Japan” has long been freighted with nationalism — from more patriotic school curricula to revising the pacifist postwar constitution so Tokyo can field a conventional military.
But this hawkish leader rightly seeks to open Japan. He has signed free-trade deals, eased curbs on immigration, highlighted the need for more women in the workforce and, yes, worked to mend fences with neighbors. The urgency for such steps is increasing with President Donald Trump’s trade war.
To “escape the shackles of the past,” Kingston says, Tokyo “needs to be humble about history. The future depends on managing the shared past.”
For Japan, this must start at home. Tokyo’s principal museum recording the Second World War is located at the Yasukuni Shrine where millions of dead soldiers are enshrined, including convicted war criminals headed by Gen. Hideki Tojo, the wartime prime minister. The museum’s view is nationalist, to put it mildly, with only limited references to Japanese atrocities. It is time to prepare a more balanced public record.
One unavoidable discussion: reparations, which Tokyo has long dreaded. It has preferred to keep its head down, lavish overseas development assistance around Asia and hope things blow over.
The Seoul ruling is a reminder that they are not going away. Some 70 Japanese companies, including Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, face unpalatable judgments in 15 similar cases.
As the strongest Japanese leader in decades, Abe has the power to act boldly. No one really expects him to follow Willy Brandt and fall to his knees in remorse as did the German statesman in Warsaw in 1970.
But moving beyond Japan’s wartime legacy requires serious action. Otherwise, Abe will struggle to burnish his stature as a world leader — and Tokyo will be hit by new damaging court rulings.
William Pesek is an award-winning Tokyo-based journalist and author of “Japanization: What the World Can Learn from Japan’s Lost Decades.” He was given the 2018 prize for excellence in opinion writing by the Society of Publishers in Asia, for his work for the Nikkei Asian Review

日本弁護士「強制徴用賠償、ICJでも日本が負ける」…その根拠は?

中央日報日本語版

日本の弁護士約100人が韓国大法院(最高裁に相当)の徴用賠償判決に対する自国政府の対応を批判して問題解決を促した。
川上詩朗弁護士山本晴太弁護士は今月5日、東京千代田区にある参議院議員会館会議室で「元徴用工の韓国大法院判決に対する弁護士有志声明」を発表した。
2人は「日本が国際司法裁判所(ICJ)に提訴する場合、日本が敗れる可能性が高い」としながら「被害者が納得して社会的にも容認された解決内容が必要だ」と主張した。
日本の弁護士は強制徴用賠償問題の本質は「人権問題」と指摘して「被害者の個人請求権は消滅していない」と強調した。
弁護士は2007年に中国被害者が起こした損害賠償請求訴訟を事例として挙げた。
当時、日本の最高裁判所は中国被害者に「裁判上、権利が喪失した」として原告敗訴判決を下したが「請求権は消滅していない」と明らかにした点を根拠に挙げた。つまり、日本政府側も1991年中国側に韓国大法院と類似の立場を明らかにしたと説明した。
あわせて「被害者個人の請求権が消滅していないうえに国際法上でも被害者は裁判を受ける権利がある」とし「このために日本が国際司法裁判所に提訴しても日本が敗れる可能性が大きい」と明らかにした。
弁護士は「被害者と社会が受け入れることができない国家間合意は真の解決になりえない」」と声を高めた。
この日、代表として出席した川上弁護士は「今回の韓国最高裁の判決に対して『国際法上あり得ない』と述べた安倍晋三首相の発言に違和感を感じて緊急声明を発表する」とし「急意で用意された声明で、現在まで100人余りが参加した」と明らかにした。
この日配布された共同声明資料には、弁護士89人や学者6人など合計95人が署名したと記録されており、意見を同じくする弁護士は増え続けているという。
一方、日本政府は韓国大法院の強制徴用賠償判決に関連し、韓国を国際司法裁判所に単独提訴する方針だと産経新聞が6日、報じた。同紙は、大法院が新日鉄住金(旧・新日本製鉄))に命じた損害賠償を韓国政府が代わりに履行するなどの措置を取らない場合を仮定してこのような方針を固めたと説明した。
これとあわせて、日本政府は在外公館を通じて自国の立場を海外各国に知らせるなど海外メディアを通した世論戦を本格化する様相だ。
河野太郎外相は大法院判決直後「極めて遺憾であり、断じて受け入れられない」という談話を発表した後、連日強硬発言を繰り返している。外信インタビューで、韓国大法院の強制徴用賠償判決を中傷する一方、記者団との会見では「(韓国大法院の強制徴用賠償判決は)暴挙であり国際秩序に対する挑戦」と主張した。
日本政府は「個人の請求権は1965年韓日請求権協定で消滅していない」という韓国大法院の判決趣旨は説明せずに韓国が協定を破ったと強調している。
これを通じて、国際社会における韓国の信頼度を落とそうとしているのではないかという分析がある。
これについて韓国外交部は「我々の司法府判断に対して節制されていない言葉で評価をするなど、過剰対応していることに対し、甚だ遺憾だと言わざるを得ない」とし「三権分立の基本原則に則り、行政府は司法府の判断を尊重するのは当然で、これは日本を含めてどの自由民主主義国家も例外であるはずがない」と指摘した。


11/30

 11/20頃


 


Top Pageへ

 5,6年前、セントラル・パークへ続く7番街の大通りの歩道の両脇にけばけばしい色の菓子や果物を売る中国人の屋台が並んでいるのを見て、もうNYには来ないと決めていたが、カーネギーホールで世界的名歌手の演奏があるので、もしかして変わっているかもしれないと期待して、出かけた。3泊だけの旅行だったけど、想像以上の快適な旅行だった。
 なんといっても、安全な街になっていた。着いたとたんにホテルからカーネギーホールへ10分、夜の街をすたすた歩いて到着。Anna Netrebkoを聴いた。それから2日後には大好きなElina Garancaのリサイタルを聴いた。至福の時間だった。
 街歩きは2-day pass (by bus)で。セントラル・パークからHarem tourへ。WTC Memorial Park, One World Center Bldgもこのバスで。NYC Museum, MET, Guggenheim も。カフェやデリは利用したが、ちゃんとした(?)レストランは今回はなし。次回に期待。中国人Venderは周辺へ散り(歩道が広くなっていたのはそのため?)街は美しくなり、ところどころに花壇が増えていた。
 工事中のビル、道路補修工事による車線減少などのカオスはNYそのもの。でも、スマホを見ながら街歩きの若者、中年、女性もおおく、NYも安全になったと実感。UberもGood!
Carnegie Hall  Museums  The Town
World Trade C Foods
Memo

Top Pageへ

Foodを楽しむのにはチョット時間がなさ過ぎた。でもそれ以上の楽しみがあった!
毎回行く9Ten Restauran朝食(しつらえは同じだったが、経営者がドイツ系からアラブ系に。 4000円 高!)
ホテルの前のrestaurant(3.000円ほど)
次の日の朝も健在(!?)
Times Squareの Cafe
野菜が多い中東系の人がやっているデリ(3,000円)
(右)Hilton  Inn Garden Times Square前のデリ(Good!) 1,500円ほど

 

Autumn in New York,‘18 Coverへ