Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
That's because they French refuse to let the EU scrap the Strasbourg seat, so every month masses of people and paperwork are transported there and back. Vast waste of money all due to French pride, apparently in 2011 they went to the ECJ when only 11 trips to Strasbourg were on the calendar. The horror! Now they're off to the ECJ because an important vote isn't taking place in Strasbourg.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.politico.eu/article/budget-vote-leads-to-france-vs-parliament-fight-over-strasbourg/amp/?client=safari

That time stick in my head when Jacques Chirac walked out of an EU summit because a speaker addressed everyone in English, and wouldn't return until they spoke in French.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:


In other words, it would be an EU wide-agreement, but would not include the 'EU' per se. The only real reason for any European countries to not sign such an accord, would be if they wanted to potentially use the issue as a bargaining chip in the official EU negotiations.

Does that make my position clearer?

The EU are ahead of that and said we shouldn't approach individual members for individual agreements on anything.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38959995

Then tell them there a bunch of morons and Brussels is a perfectly working set up.

Close the parliament as its just a waste of millions, between staffing, maintain, transport, security, cleaning it and upgrades for the systems as they are needed. that's hundreds of millions when you add it all up in thr end.
No other state I ever know of now mantains two parliments like that. Sell the damn place as a company hq for someone.

The devolved ones make sense, national but not keeping a entire second set of buildings, chambers and such.
So many lost work hours moving.

B.. They say that. We are leaving the EU..
Why not... Just because they say so.. What they gonna do send us a harsh letter...

They need our trade much as we need there's.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
The EU are ahead of that and said we shouldn't approach individual members for individual agreements on anything.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38959995

Well then, there you go. The EU is not willing to permit member states to act unilaterally and is therefore a threat to national sovereignty.

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:


You are missing the point. We can make decisions on individual countries citizens, individual countries can make decisions on our UK citizens once we leave is correct. However you are haranguing about the EU not coming out and saying they would guarantee UK citizens rights permanently, but they simply *can't*. It is not currently in their remit to do so, because once we leave it will be an individual countries decision as to how they accept and deal with UK citizens long term.

Ahhhh, I think I see where the confusion between us is coming from. Let me try wording differently, I think we're debating separate things.

I'm asserting that the member states of the EU (not the EU itself) could jointly sign up to a separate accord through their Foreign Ministries to permit current British citizens dwelling within their nation-states who tick a certain number of criteria residency rights there, in exchange for identical treatment of their citizens within Britain. The intent for this could be declared now, with the formal piece of paper/treaty ready to go for all nation-states to sign individually upon Britain seceding.

In other words, it would be an EU wide-agreement, but would not include the 'EU' per se. The only real reason for any European countries to not sign such an accord, would be if they wanted to potentially use the issue as a bargaining chip in the official EU negotiations.

It would be a relatively simplistic piece of paper to draw up, given that it would only apply to granting residency right to people who ticked certain criteria at that point in time. It would never need updating, or further paperwork beyond that initial application. It's like granting a group of x number of refugees residency rights. Once you've processed that group, that's it.

Does that make my position clearer?

Yes that's clearer. I think we need to be careful then with our use of "EU" in this conversation then otherwise we'll end up getting mightily confused. Might I recommend we use "states making up the membership of the EU" (or similar) when we are referring to the individual countries (potential) actions and the EU when we are referring the EU body in itself actions as it has sounded like the "EU" is being blamed for not agreeing quid pro quo on UK nationals (which they can't as they don't have the remit). I think we are going to find that there are a lot of chips being played because all the individual member states will have their needs. Somehow we are going to have to find an agreement that suits them all. It could be France/Spain have no interest in free trade on cars, Italy has no interest in free trade on whiskey, Romania has no interest in free trade on food. They will all have their own parts of the economy they want to protect. We might be all right for shortbread biscuits and jam though....

I'm still not sure what benefit having a mutually signed document on UK residency has anyway. We could formalise some agreement with the EU and then find France/Germany/Italy/Portugal/etc six months later places much greater limitations on expats anyway which they are entitled to do as the EU has no remit on these issues. There is nothing the EU could do about this. Would this then void the EU agreement with the UK; the EU country in question might not care, the EU might but there's nothing it could do? They could easily all sign the commitment and then revoke it on day 2 after we've left the EU and there is nothing we could do about it - this isn't the EU's fault, just the action of one (or more) of its member states. Thinking about the implications I don't think we should even have this element in the negotiations because it just opens more cans of worms than it actually resolves on the basis that the EU can't actually commit its members to any course of action on these issues (not without changing legislation and that's not very likely)

 Whirlwind wrote:

Yes that's clearer. I think we need to be careful then with our use of "EU" in this conversation then otherwise we'll end up getting mightily confused.

Yeah, I noticed my original wording was a little sloppy and misleading. My apologies there.

I'm still not sure what benefit having a mutually signed document on UK residency has anyway. We could formalise some agreement with the EU and then find France/Germany/Italy/Portugal/etc six months later places much greater limitations on expats anyway which they are entitled to do as the EU has no remit on these issues.

That wouldn't necessarily be a problem, purely because it would be a matter of being a signatory to a international agreement. If someone withdraws, then they'd incur the issue of not being a signatory (namely, that their own batch of citizens who live here would lose residency rights in the UK). But it wouldn't void the agreement for all the other individual signatories.

Frankly, it's really such a small thing we're talking about here, I don't really see it as a can of worms at all. It's a bare handful of maybe a million people out of a continent with about 750 million. It's not going to break anybody's healthcare network or cause lots of cultural integration issues. All these people are already there, you know?

As such, there's not really any substantial reason for anyone to withdraw later or refuse to sign. It's a onetime agreement for a handful of people, and it would really give them all some stability and peace of mind whilst the governments haggle over the important stuff. And it would be so easy to arrange, it really would. Don't you think it would be worth the couple of days it would take them all to confer, draw up a bit of paper, and sort it, in order to give those poor people a more stable future?

They're normal folk after all. Leave them out of this politicking and horse trading. It would be the right thing to do, on everyone's parts. And it's why I'm a little sour that the collective governments of Europe haven't bothered to do it, even after May literally opened the door and said, 'Hey, you want to resolve this one quickly on the side for the sake of everyone involved?'

I reckon she should go ahead and issue residency regardless to all EU nationals here, but it makes me a little caustic that no-one in Europe seems to care one way or t'other.

 Sentinel1 wrote:


As I understand it, we can't do simple or complex deals with single member states as a member country because that undermines the constitution of 'One Europe' in the EU policy. Once we have officially left , when ever that is, we should be able to do what we like with other EU countries so long as the EU doesn't shaft us with some dirty political leaving deal that means we can't e.g. in exchange for continued free trade.

That's not quite correct. The EU has a constitution and some areas have been deferred to the EU and some areas haven't. Those areas which have been deferred to the EU then couldn't be negotiated on a country by country basis. So we couldn't have a separate trade on cars with Poland compared to the rest of the EU; Romania couldn't redefine a new definition as to whether when waste we send to them is class as recycled compared to other waste they accept from other EU countries; Italy couldn't redefine what is acceptable in agricultural market (e.g. which pesticides are allowed to be used on crops and then be edible).

What we can agree with individual countries are those elements that remain under the remit of the individual state. So this would include long term residency, defence etc. We could agree with Poland that their citizens had permanent residency rights in the UK subject to any that are under 35 spending 2 years in the UK army (for example) - note I'm not recommending this!

When the EU states there shouldn't be any special deals it's talking about backroom deals outside the official negotiating position where, for example, the UK agrees with Poland to provide a permanent armed force of 10,000 men, an aircraft carrier and a tank battalion (something that can be agreed between the individual states) for a more favourable voting position on specific elements of the EU agreement (In comparison if a private business did this it would effectively be corruption). It's a warning to both the UK and other EU states not to try it because it will lead to an undermining of the negotiating team and when it comes out you'll get all the other countries asking why aren't they getting their troops for example. It makes everyone suspicious of the process and nothing will then be agreed (and the UK would have no choice but to go full WTO rules).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:


Frankly, it's really such a small thing we're talking about here, I don't really see it as a can of worms at all. It's a bare handful of maybe a million people out of a continent with about 750 million. It's not going to break anybody's healthcare network or cause lots of cultural integration issues. All these people are already there, you know?

I agree it's a small issue overall. I'd be more worried about Ireland and Gibraltar and how that will work; however because immigration is a big issue then it can be *politically* significant even wen it shouldn't be. I either think they should either park it and tell the public that long term residency status is an issue between the UK and the individual countries and it will be discussed nearer the time (not ideal because of the uncertainty) or my preferred route would be to give dual citizenship status to any EU citizen that wants it whilst asking, politely, whether the EU will allow UK citizens to pay a fee to keep individual EU citizenship (which would be waived for those under a certain earning threshold from charging a higher fee for those that can afford it).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39011224

Domestic violence: Theresa May to oversee new law



Theresa May will directly oversee the creation of new laws to deal with domestic abuse in England and Wales, the government has said.

Downing Street said current legislation lacked clarity and it was "unacceptable" that some areas worked harder to tackle abuse than others.

A new act would aim to address this inconsistency and make the law work better for victims.

Labour said success depended on funding for policing and to support victims.

Mrs May said it was an issue she had always attached a "personal importance" to.

"Domestic violence and abuse is a life-shattering and absolutely abhorrent crime," she said.

"There are thousands of people who are suffering at the hands of abusers - often isolated, and unaware of the options and support available to them to end it."

It is unclear what shape the Domestic Violence and Abuse Act might take, but the government is consulting with experts who work with victims of abuse.

Their ideas and suggestions will help shape the new law.

Diana Barran, chief executive of anti-abuse charity SafeLives, said she would like to see legislation simplified and consolidated.

She said the police's inconsistent response was partly down to "cultural blocks". Officers did not always take reports seriously, and had to deal with a large number of cases.

Victims' commissioner Baroness Newlove, who also backed the plan, said she wanted to make sure victims had confidence to come forward to report abuse.

"I have met victims who have been dangled out their front window to scare them, who have been thrown into baths to be woken up from being beaten up - these are horrendous issues."

She said she knew of police interviews that had taken place in the home of the victim and perpetrator, meaning the victim was too scared to speak.

During her six years as home secretary, Mrs May introduced domestic violence protection orders and a new offence against controlling and coercive behaviour.

Domestic violence prosecutions and convictions have started to rise in recent years, and the prime minister said "no stone will be left unturned in delivering a system that increases convictions, and works better for victims".

Anti-abuse charities including Women's Aid, the NSPCC and Refuge welcomed the news, with one saying the laws around domestic abuse needed to be clearer.

Mark Brooks, chairman of the ManKind Initiative charity, called for a "real step change" in supporting and recognising male victims of domestic violence, saying they made up to a third of all victims.

Wait, they're "consulting with experts"? That's never going to end well, what with the British public being tired of experts and all...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Wait, they're "consulting with experts"? That's never going to end well, what with the British public being tired of experts and all...

That might be more applicable if the bloke who said that was actually still a minister. It's about as relevant as quoting Nick Clegg about now.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
The EU are ahead of that and said we shouldn't approach individual members for individual agreements on anything.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38959995

Well then, there you go. The EU is not willing to permit member states to act unilaterally and is therefore a threat to national sovereignty.

No. It's a threat to the bit of national sovereignty involved in areas where national sovereignty has been invested in the EU.

That is to say, the UK agreed to the principle of free movement of EU citizens, and now has no way to prevent free movement of EU citizens, but the UK still has complete authority to control the movement of non-EU citizens, and the EU cannot prevent that from being carried out on our terms.

 Ketara wrote:

That might be more applicable if the bloke who said that was actually still a minister.

It's still a feature of British politics, the government routinely ignores experts who's advice goes against their ideology, even when that advice backed up by evidence. Just look at drug legislation for the perfect example.

 Sentinel1 wrote:

I disagree Churchill would never let Britain surrender

As I understand it, Churchill had written up a letter of surrender and was planning to, then after a tirade from some other MP, he'd changed his tune and came out with the fighting on beaches speech. I haven't found a citation for this yet though.

Churchill didn't take over the reins of power in the crisis of the fall of France in order to surrender a week later. He would have let Chamberlain take the fall.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
The EU are ahead of that and said we shouldn't approach individual members for individual agreements on anything.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38959995

Well then, there you go. The EU is not willing to permit member states to act unilaterally and is therefore a threat to national sovereignty.

Shocking isn't it.

If only there was a way for nations who aren't happy with the terms of membership (that they voluntarily signed up to) to leave...

Herzlos wrote:

 Sentinel1 wrote:

I disagree Churchill would never let Britain surrender

As I understand it, Churchill had written up a letter of surrender and was planning to, then after a tirade from some other MP, he'd changed his tune and came out with the fighting on beaches speech. I haven't found a citation for this yet though.

Not to go into it much, but Churchill was the guy who was advocating using chemical weapons on "the beaches" ...and the countryside, and population centers, and ... Yeah, he was overturned, and luckily Operating Sealion never happened.

He didn't even make that speech, they just had a guy who sounded like him make it.

Though yes, following Dunkirk, it was expected that the British would surrender. Rudolph Hess' peace treaty was of his own invention however, though presumably there were a fair few members of the British establishment who would have entertained it had the military not made his capture public (...we'll skim over the involvement of the Watching Committee with that whole period of politics).

So now there seems to be talk about possibility of upper house putting some requirements to the brexit deal like citizens being protected. Wonder how they plan to have that work? Obviously nobody can quarantee those before talks begin and once talk begins you have the 2 years and when that's done you are out without deals so whether upper house agrees with deal is only relevant in that it can force negotiators to negotiate until the 2 years are up at which point you are out without deal.

Lol.

All the Lords can do is send the legislation back to Parliament. They cant do anything on their own. In short there is nothing significant that they can do to stop or amend Brexit.

Aye. And whether you're for or against Brexit, seeing a bunch of unelected old white men try and go against the result of both a referendum and a House of Commons vote feels somewhat distasteful.

Thursday's by-elections could be historic for being nothing more than the final nail in the coffin for UKIP. If they lose, their raison d'etre disappears quicker than a pint of bitter when Farage is town.

I can't see them winning on Thursday. Eddie Hitler is on the ropes, and the party has been a shambles since Farage called it a day.

I suspect a lot of them will re-join the Tories.

As for Labour, Corbyn needs these victories like a thirsty man needs water, and I think they might sneak them both.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
All the Lords can do is send the legislation back to Parliament. They cant do anything on their own. In short there is nothing significant that they can do to stop or amend Brexit.

And could they keep sending it back to parliament until they get their terms into it?

But frankly the funny thing is what the lords think any assurances they want about brexit terms would do? Parliament cannot give them as those are part of negotiations. And it's not like Brits can go "oops we don't leave after all". Once the negotiations are started(and lords can't get terms they would want before negotiatons are started) it's 2 years and then you are either our with deal or without deal. Whether there's terms lords wanted is irrelevant.

ONLY thing they could do is force negotiations go on for the full 2 years and then have brexit without deal unless negotiatiors can get the terms lords wanted.

tneva82 wrote:

And could they keep sending it back to parliament until they get their terms into it?

Nah, there's a limited number of times they can do that before it gets auto-passed. The House of Lords is designed as a speed bump, not a road block. It can make you slow down two times, but it can't stop you.

 Ketara wrote:
Aye. And whether you're for or against Brexit, seeing a bunch of unelected old white men try and go against the result of both a referendum and a House of Commons vote feels somewhat distasteful.

Tbh the House of Lords has been a bone of contention for many for a long time, but it does serve a very useful purpose in moderating Parliament. First off, the Lords cannot block a bill entirely. Granted, they can vote against its implementation and send it back to Parliament, however, If parliament wish they can invoke the Parliament act and simply overrule the Lords.
Just like any second house, they are part of the checks and balances.
Personally I would prefer to see a system like in the US where we have a "Senate" comprised of representatives, not of the political class, drawn from the population roughly based around counties or some other equitable way of dividing the country to act as a brake on the more radical ideas of Parliament. How those individuals are selected is a matter for further debate, but in the meantime the House of Lords is fulfilling this role fairly well.

They generally do solid work challenging the government, being filled with mostly ex-politicians who've been around the block, but now have nothing really to gain or lose from voting with their conscience. TBH I approve of that "independence" from the party, and also of their role in scrutinising parliament.

The House of Lords is the second chamber of the UK Parliament. It works with the House of Commons to:

make laws
check and challenge the actions of the government, and
provide a forum of independent expertise
The House of Lords Chamber spends about 60% of its time on legislation; the other 40% is spent on scrutiny – questioning Government and debating issues and policy.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-lords-faqs/role/

Not a popular opinion I admit, I tend to be a lonely voice when "defending" the inherited rights of landed gentry to operate the levers of power in a modern democracy, but I'm always suspicious of people who tend to start threatening the machinery of government with "reform" when they think things aren't going entirely their way. I'd rather wait until Brexit at least has run it course before overhauling the whole lot.

Of course, once the Lords have been done away with, and Lizzie pops her clogs, and it looks like King Charlie will be taking the "reigns" so to speak, we'll probably end up a Johnny Republic like those damn Yankees, and we might as well give up the whole tea and bad teeth bit, get into corn dogs and squirty cheese, and elect a Wotsit* to be President.





*Wotsits are British Cheetos for our ex-colonial cousins.

 Ketara wrote:
Aye. And whether you're for or against Brexit, seeing a bunch of unelected old white men try and go against the result of both a referendum and a House of Commons vote feels somewhat distasteful.

To be fair, the Lords includes women and "not properly British" people too, but essentially you have summarised the issues with an unelected second House of Parliament in one sentence.

One of Bliar's screw-ups, of course. He was elected with a huge mandate to reform the Lords and did a 1/4-arsed job.

I'm not very clear on the way the bill for leaving the EU works. For a start no one can agree what it amounts to, which makes me suspicious that's it's trumped up. Secondly, we're a long time net contributor to the EU to the annual value of about £8-9 billion, yet we still owe them £50bn when we leave?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I'm not very clear on the way the bill for leaving the EU works. For a start no one can agree what it amounts to, which makes me suspicious that's it's trumped up. Secondly, we're a long time net contributor to the EU to the annual value of about £8-9 billion, yet we still owe them £50bn when we leave?

It's because they work out their budget in seven year increments, and not all of it is awarded instantly. We agreed to support that budged. Other figures, like pensions for EU personnel (a proportion of who are British) also remain unknown factors until they occur.

So they need to sit down and work out a rough figure which they reckon would have been coming from our future contributions. Which is fair enough. They want to force us to agree to it before we start talking about anything else though, which is not. Because it's trying to pressure us into likely paying for far more than we would have otherwise done by making everything else contingent on us agreeing to whatever figure they care to put out.

I'll be honest, the EU's negotiating tactics convince me more and more that leaving was the right call.

Yes, this s a common refrain from Leavers.

Having been warned that Leaving was going to get expensive, the fact that Leaving is going to be expensive shows that it was a silly idea not to Leave.

 Ketara wrote:
They want to force us to agree to it before we start talking about anything else though, which is not. Because it's trying to pressure us into likely paying for far more than we would have otherwise done by making everything else contingent on us agreeing to whatever figure they care to put out.

And we know that they are trying to get us to pay for more than we should how exactly? Do you have evidence for this? Otherwise you are just slating the EU with no good evidence. Just because they want to get potential costs down on the table first is actually not a bad thing. When you come to negotiating contracts it is in almost all cases the first thing you discuss because then both parties are on the same understanding.

There will be lots of projects jointly funded by the EU members states, some more than others. Some will be optional and some we will have committed to already. It makes good sense to put all these down on the table so the UK can determine which ones it wishes to fund, which ones it has to and which ones it doesn't. For example the fusion test facility might be an optional contribution. We might contribute (example figures) £500m to the ITER fusion project through the EU. The EU may put this down and say do we want to continue to contribute. If we say no then both we save the money and secondly it can be taken off the table for negotiations at a political level (there may be some TUPE considerations and so on but that's at an employment level - such as British scientists moving to the EU). This saves time and effort discussing the issues. Of course it his case if they do get Fusion as an energy source sorted then we won't have access to it and that will be at our cost.

On the other hand there is likely to be a mandatory costs. This could be, for example, a contract already signed and awarded for a gas pipeline between the UK and France. As the money is effectively already committed breaching the contract is likely to lead to years worth of legal cases as the contractors sue the governments for breach of terms.

It is perfectly reasonable to include costs up front. It is pretty much always the same with business contracts. No one is pressurising anyone by doing it, it's just making sure everyone knows the starting point and things that we don't want to pay for can be excluded early avoiding lengthy negotiations over things we don't 'care' about.

Stating that they are just pressurising us indicates a lack of knowledge of how contract negotiations work and a general dig at the EU for good measure.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, this s a common refrain from Leavers.

Having been warned that Leaving was going to get expensive, the fact that Leaving is going to be expensive shows that it was a silly idea not to Leave.

Nothing to do with expense. You'll note that I said it was fair that we paid our share of the bills. I have no objection whatsoever to doing so. We did agree to them, after all.

What I dislike is the way the EU is approaching the whole affair. The rhetoric that flows out of Brussels isn't that we're a common neighbour who feel is best to go our separate ways, and all the best to us (the attitude which I personally have towards Europe), but rather a labelling of us as Public Enemy Numero Uno. And that's what I find distasteful, what makes me feel it was the right decision. The petty, controlling, vindictive element that seems to increasingly pervade their communiques.

All I want is for everyone to act like adults and get on, and the majority of what I seem to hear from Europe is immature playground style squabbling, bitchiness, and blame. It gets quite tiresome. You just want everyone to get on with things, play the game politely, shake hands, and move on. Much like a good game of 40K.

Whirlwind wrote:And we know that they are trying to get us to pay for more than we should how exactly? Do you have evidence for this? Otherwise you are just slating the EU with no good evidence.

It's an inference on the tactics being deployed. 'You must agree to pay us X sum of money before we can begin to discuss the matters of real import to you.' It's essentially a basic form of coercion. Instead of discussing the matters at the same time (because there is a time limit), which would be an impediment to nobody, there is instead an insistence that we have to agree to writing them a cheque first.

It's perfectly apparent to all parties involved that Britain isn't going to default on her commitments, we're looking to get on with everyone in the future. Absconding like that would only hurt us. The only reason to insist on the financial discussion being held first is if you're planning on asking for more moolah than is actually owed and hoping the other party will be pressured into signing because they need to get to the substance of the matter.

That's my evidence. It's my reading of the situation. You are free to take it or leave it. You may dismiss it as a 'lack of business knowledge' on my part, but considering the number of in depth business histories and biographies currently adorning the bookshelf to my right, you'll forgive me if I take such thinly disguised assumptions of my inferior knowledge with a grain of salt. I'm not saying I'm right, but at the moment, I consider it the most likely of probabilities.

Whoa phantom double post

The problem with a lot of the pre negotiation talk from both sides is the amount of stupid blustering. Its becoming the political version of those daft pre fight press conferences they have in boxing.

 Ketara wrote:
...What I dislike is the way the EU is approaching the whole affair. The rhetoric that flows out of Brussels isn't that we're a common neighbour who feel is best to go our separate ways, and all the best to us...

You know, that's the sort of thing the partner who's walking out on a marriage says, "why are you being such a douche? The marriage is over, I'm keeping the kids and the house, you can stay at your brothers. Btw, this is my new boyfriend Donny."

 r_squared wrote:

You know, that's the sort of thing the partner who's walking out on a marriage says, "why are you being such a douche? The marriage is over, I'm keeping the kids and the house, you can stay at your brothers. Btw, this is my new boyfriend Donny."

If we're the ones keeping the house, how come remainers keep moaning that we're making such an economic mistake?

Or does she get to keep the vintage Mustang?