TIMES CHANGE BACK AGAIN

The world is about to change, for the better….

1967 and Israel wiped out the Egyptian Airforce in a single raid. All the Egyptian fighter aircraft disabled on the ground and none made it to the air – well, that’s the story anyway.
Into the Egyptian territories of Gaza and the Sinai Peninsula, whipped Jordan and kicked them out of Jerusalem and pushed right to the West Bank of the Jordan River. The fortified high ground of Syria’s Golan Heights as well.
That was three surrounding countries, all bigger, all with larger armies, all beaten off simultaneously. Not just beaten, but their air forces destroyed, armies pushed back and the war was over in just six days. Iraqi air force was chopped to bits as well.
WOW.
And the world crowed, cheering the success of plucky little Israel.
Truly, it did.
How times change huh?
The Arab world was pissed off, I mean, well pissed off, but what could they do? They were militarily impotent and frustrated as hell.
So they did something. Some bright spark came up with an idea of going after not Israel, but her supporters. Making life dreadful for everyone else until they started putting pressure on the hated enemy.
How? Easy, OPEC.
Now, OPEC had been founded in 1960, but no one had taken much notice until the Arab members roused it into action in 1973, after another fracas with Israel, the Yom Kippur war.
Then we noticed. Boy, did we notice, oil was cut back, prices jacked up, and we have been beholden to the oil exporters of the Arab world since.
These guys are rich, they are now very very rich. Ok, the people are not, not on a per capita GDP basis anyway, but some individuals are, and the governments have loadsa cash to play with. Cash which they don’t have to account to taxpayers for.
So, they use oil to threaten and intimidate, and cash to bribe and influence. How many universities world wide have established Islamic Studies departments with Saudi cash? Biased towards Arab viewpoints and Wahhabist ideology?
Cambridge (England) and Harvard (Mass)? Both traded their credibility for Saudi cash, and others.
Money has been spent, threats have been hinted at, friends have been made.
It all worked too, now, forty years later, who talks of plucky little Israel?
Apartheid Israel.
Racist Israel.
Warmonger Israel.
Nazi Israel.
What’s changed?
Oil, that’s what. Oh sure, part of it is the left hates success, and Israel is the lefts greatest (only?) success, but that’s bye the bye.
Oil buys influence, and Israel, free, open and democratic Israel, doesn’t have any and the thug states surrounding it do.
Ok, they don’t, but other Middle Eastern thug states do, and that’s what matters.
How much oil do these people have? How much oil is there?
Well, conventional reserves, world wide, are somewhere between 1 trillion barrels and 1.3 trillion. Of that, Saudi Arabia has 250 Billion barrels – somewhere between 20-25% of total conventional reserves (although, Saudi has been reporting those same reserve levels for years – they just don’t seem to deplete). Iraq has about 143 billion barrels, Iran has 138, and Kuwait has 104.
So, just this little group of Israel’s hatemongering and vitriolic enemies control over half the worlds confirmed conventional reserves of oil.
We have all heard the old saw about how Moses should have turned right after his stroll across the Red Sea, rather than the left turn he actually took, plonking his chums down on the one spot in the entire middle east where there is no oil.
Or did he?
Now we get to non conventional supplies of oil.
Have you heard of oil shale? Oil held not in fluid reservoirs but impregnating shale? There is a lot of this stuff, a real real lot. America for instance, has an estimated 2 trillion barrels of oil locked up in oil shale. Yep, that’s right, 2 trillion barrels. Just the US, by itself, has an amount equal to about twice the worlds proven conventional reserves.
The US doesn’t dig the stuff up mainly for regulatory reasons, it is all locked away and the clean and cost effective extraction technology is only pretty new and the disputes are being worked out. However, one country has strong reason to cut through all that guff and get the industry moving.
Venezuela has about the same as the US, but given its (roughly) 300 billion barrels of cheap conventional reserves it is in no great hurry to exploit it, and ,next, is, well, Israel, with somewhere between 250 and 500 billion barrels in the Shfela Basin, south east of Jerusalem .
Yep, when it comes to oil shale Israel has reserves at least equal to those of Saudi Arabia and maybe equal to those of Saudi, plus Iraq, plus Iran.
Game change anyone?
Now, this stuff hasn’t been exploited in the past because it was both too costly and too environmentally damaging, but that has all changed. We now know how to extract the stuff without poisoning the land, and as long as prices are over $35 per barrel it can be done at a profit too.
And Israel has real and immediate reason to take advantage of its suddenly exploitable luck. Think of the game change if Israel can shaft OPEC and engineer a glut of oil on the market. Could Iran or Saudi cope if oil suddenly halved in price? To between $60 and $70 per barrel? They’d still make oodles of cash, but they have oodles of clients too, all sucking at that oleiferous teat. Loads of friends in both the Middle East and the West would suddenly find themselves cut off and having to work for a living.
Mosques in Dearbourn and Bradford, jihadis in Beirut and London, all thrown onto their own resources.
Politicians suddenly bereft of delightful gifts and holiday hosts.
Propaganda no longer financed.
Back to an era of cheap energy for world manufacturing and transport. God! Even more reason for the red Greens to hate Israel.
As a telling side issue, you know the oil majors aren’t involved? Apparently they aren’t working with this free and open society because they don’t want to take the risk of offending Muslims and being cut off from access to the thug states. The whole effort is being driven by Zionist (that is not a pejorative term on this site) businessmen such as Lord Rothschild and Rupert Murdoch.

http://www.countingcats.com/?p=10056http

ANDREW BRONS - BNP, MEP. (PARTY) UNITY CANDIDATE

We need to control the spread of human rights, Supreme Court judge says

The spread of human rights across all parts of society should be controlled or it will increasingly be opposed by Government and Parliament, a senior judge has said.

Baroness Hale of Richmond also suggested that European judges may have got it wrong when they ruled that prisoners should have the right to vote.

The news could embolden David Cameron, the Prime Minister, to defy the European Court of Human Rights and refuse to give prisoners the vote.

In a speech, Lady Hale, a Justice of the Supreme Court, said there were “natural limits” against the application of the European Convention on Human Rights.

She described the Convention, which was introduced in the UK as the Human Rights Act in 2000, as a “living tree” whose growth had to be controlled.

She told an audience at Gresham College in London, she said: “As a supporter of the Convention and the work of the Supreme Court, my plea to them is to accept there are some natural limits to the growth and development of the living tree.

“Otherwise, I have a fear that their judgements and those of the national courts which follow them, will increasingly be defied by our governments and Parliaments. This is a very rare phenomenon at present and long may it remain so.”

Lady Hale touched on the ongoing row about the rights of prisoners to vote, suggesting that this was an example of judges going too far.

National courts had to try “loyally to keep pace with the evolution and on occasions to make a reasonable prediction of where Strasbourg will go next.

“In the end, the standard most often appealed to in the court’s jurisprudence is the common European understanding.”

Sometimes judges relied on domestic legislation, or other times by “evolving European attitudes and beliefs”.

She added: “Sometimes, as in Hirst v United Kingdom [which said that a blanket ban on giving prisoners the vote was against the Convention] it seems to get some way ahead of both, because bans on prisoners’ voting are common throughout Europe.”

Human rights rulings, she said, had to take into account the views of the individual parliaments as well.

They “should seek to strike a fair balance, between the universal values of freedom and equality embodied in the Convention, and the particular choices made by the democratically-elected Parliaments of the member states”, she said.

Lady Hale added: “Some values, such as the right to life and freedom from torture, are non-negotiable but others are more delicately nuanced.”

The speech could embolden Mr Cameron, who is against giving prisoners the right to vote, to face down the European Court and refuse to agree to the measure. MPs voted overwhelmingly in February not to give prisoners the vote.

In April a leaked Government document said the European court had no legal powers to force officials to pay compensation for denying prisoners their human rights.

---------------------------

Not quite what we all want but it's a start.

We have Foreign MASS MURDERERS, RAPISTS, PAEDOPHILES etc all claiming a "RIGHT TO LIFE" in this country. They have NO RIGHT TO LIFE IN BRITAIN, ONLY THE INDIGENOUS BRITISH HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF THAT RIGHT. And it's about time we fought (on the streets if necessary) for OUR RIGHTS AS AN INDIGENOUS POPULATION.

The "Growing Tree" which she describes can be pruned and can be cut down completely if necessary. I think it's NECESSARY to cut that tree down now.

Britain can do 'nothing' to prevent Argentina retaking Falkland Islands

Admiral Sir John "Sandy" Woodward also said that America now had little interest in supporting Britain in any conflict as a stable Argentina was more important to the State Department.

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, Adml Woodward said Washington was pushing for negotiations over sovereignty and "significantly the islands are already being called the Malvinas by the US".

With the end of the Cold War and emergence of Asian powers Nato and Britain were not as important to Washington which in 1982 played a significant part in providing satellite intelligence and missiles to British forces.

"We can no longer rely on the Pentagon to support us in helping the islanders in their wish to remain essentially British sovereign territory," he wrote.

If as is likely significant oil reserves are found around the islands then pressure from Argentina will be immense to share in the riches.

The US would support an Argentine "accommodation" as its national interest supports stability in the area. "This tells us all too clearly which way the wind is blowing." The Organization of American States, a talking shop for north and south American countries, last week adopted a declaration calling for negotiations between Britain and Argentina over the "sovereignty" of the Falkland Islands.

President Barack Obama's administration also made clear in early 2010 that it would endorse calls for talks over the islands when it adopted the Organisation of American States useage of Malvinas instead of Falklands.

Adml Woodward said with the Armed Forces already "over-committed" in Afghanistan and Libya and the Navy drastically weakened following last year's defence review "the answer appears to be that we can do precisely nothing other than accede to US pressure".

The 79-year-old admiral led a substantial task force of two aircraft carriers, a dozen frigates and destroyers, four submarines and a total of 100 surface ships along with 25,000 servicemen were to retake the Falklands in 1982.

But the Royal Navy no longer has aircraft carriers, has lost its force of Harrier jump jets and seen its warship fleet cut in half over the last decade.

The islands are currently protected by a force of more than 1,000 troops with a reinforced company of infantry and four Typhoon fighters and a single frigate. However the Typhoons have no anti-ship or anti-submarine capability.

In a letter obtained by The Daily Telegraph last year Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, warned the Prime Minister that the island's defences would become fragile in light of the looming cuts in the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR).

He said axing the Nimrod MRA4 maritime reconnaissance aircraft would "limit our ability to deploy maritime forces rapidly into high-threat areas, and delete one element of our Falklands reinforcement plan".

The last of the £3.6 billion Nimrods was destroyed in March following the defence review.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "Claims that the Falkland Islands could be taken without a fight are completely without substance. The current garrison in the Falkland Islands is much larger in scale and has a greater capability than in 1982 and this together with our ability to reinforce rapidly by air has been maintained. "

A TALE OF TWO CULTURES

I do not read the Wigan Evening Post daily as there is not usually too much news in it.

No blame,I sympathise with the reporters thankless job of creating stories when there is little to report, in spite of that paper's attitude to our party which is basically down to the Common Purpose "elite" running it.

Wigan is generally a hard working law abiding community and as the saying goes "no news is good news".

I was however enraged to read an article that the police were not to supervise our local church walking days.

When I was a child these were the highlight of our summer and indeed holidays were booked in order not to miss with them.
I have many happy memories of these occasions with the little girls at the front in their new dresses and we older lads walking behind them, after having practiced beforehand what we should do.

After we had what was called in Billinge the "Scooster", the games or sports day when the children competed in the races.

Afterwards in our family there was always a party.
The day after was known in our village as "Sermon Sunday" when a farm trailer was parked at the crossroads (Church Brow) with the vicar addressing the throng from it.

Yes I know we had a somewhat divided village with the C of E where I was in a bit of competition with the Catholics of Birchley but in the end we were all Billingers and nominally Christian, and apart from a bit of banter we knew we were part of the same community and culture.

WE WERE IN OUR OWN VILLAGE. OUR NATIVE ENVIRONMENT.

As a young man I took part in another local tradition on that day. All day drinking in the pubs. It was really a carnival atmosphere and the local police were warned that it was our tradition and not to intervene and they obeyed this local instruction.

One time I was working away with two muslims and invited them to see our traditional activities and they enjoyed sitting with us in the pub getting quietly sloshed, and enjoying OUR culture.

These were of course decent muslims, there are some but it is now difficult do tell the good from the bad. These muslims, one a Syrian and one from Pakistan accepted that they had come here to learn their trade and then return which they did.

Anyhow, back to the story.

These walks are a part of our inheritance and traditions. The churchgoers are taxpayers and are entitled to have their events policed and even more than alien residents in our country or people of other sexuality.

I am a lapsed churchgoer (an agnostic) but support the traditions in which I was brought up and which moulded my life.

We should not need police to be present, apart from putting temporary diversions, and I accept that some traffic disruption will occur as it does at "Gay Pride" celebrations.

We have to accept disruption when they "celebrate" what they do in bed (should I celebrate my bedroom antics? I don't think anybody would be interested in them at my age. Not much to see, just noises out of various orifices, that's just me and not the wife she says).

BUT the sinister part of this is that last year kids in a walking day procession were SPAT on by alien kids who OUR PEOPLE had never invited here.

THAT IS WHY THEY NEED A POLICE PRESENCE.

THEY SHOULD HAVE IT.

THESE CHURCHGOERS PAY THEIR WAGES.

THE IMMIGRANTS DON'T

A HISTORIC MEETING

Last night we had a meeting which will go down in the annals of nationalist history locally and even possibly nationally.

Our bulletin, put out by our new organiser had in it the information that there would possibly be a leadership challenge this summer. The bulletin was written ten days ago and we had no idea of the events it would provoke.
In it our organiser stated that Richard Edmonds, a long standing patriot would stand for leadership for a year in order to institute a constitution more acceptable to members and an organisation which had more prospects of success than the one we now have.

I and my fellow members did not realise the consternation our little bulletin would have given the Party hierarchy.

Possibly when the North West organiser invited himself to speak at our meeting we should have been forewarned.

On arrival we were rather taken aback by the presence of the National Treasurer and Nominating officer together with two other "high ups" in the party.

The subject for discussion was what we could do to progress the Party and how to build on past successes and that some of us thought a new leader would improve our chances.

This idea/ concept it seems was a red rag to a bull and we were unprepared for the passion at the meeting.

Some of the senior officials were annoyed that ex senior activists and party workers who had been expelled for voicing opinions which differed from the official view were present.
These people had for years been on our "invites list" and remained there in spite of their expulsion. We have had a long history working along side them and saw no reason not to invite them because of their differences with the Party bosses.

We invite many people who are not members and ask them to bring friends (it's no use to always preach to the converted) and we need new and old blood together if we are to progress.

Our organiser gave a short speech after which I had my little input.
I was concerned to highlight where I thought we were going wrong and to seek a way to progress.

Everybody there was a true nationalist but factionalism over the past year has caused a split in nationalism and my aim was to bring these strands together, heal the wounds and form a united front against the dangers facing our country.
If we could achieve this we would be a really strong force in the salvation of our country.

Unfortunately, as I suspected when I saw the presence of senior officials I realised the meeting could become somewhat volatile. The senior party members seem to think they have the monopoly on the truth and although decent people, appear to want to run the Party in a dictatorial manner.

WE IN WIGAN & LEIGH HAVE A HISTORY OF STANDING UP FOR OUR RIGHTS, and we see no reason to change now.

We will not be dictated to and vague threats make us all the more determined.

After all we are in the BNP because we are free thinking people and nobody tells us what to do.

Our crime was, I think the suggestion that we need a new leader and it seems this is frowned upon and can even result in suspension or expulsion.

I can assure those who dislike us that nationalism is alive, well and thriving in our area but I have to admit we have our differences (like family members or those on football teams).
These are only temporary and we will get over them and my job as I see it is to try to unite the various strands of patriotic opinion into a formidable fighting force.

We all believe in the same basic principles and can and must stick together against those who seek to destroy our country (the major parties, media, bankers etc) and we will.

I was proud to be the first in the country(I think ) to announce our new preferred candidate for leader, Andrew Brons.

Andrew is a gentleman, cultured, polite, well read but perhaps not so good an orator as our present leader.
He will I think connect with the voting public better and will institute a more open and democratic party structure.

My announcement was not expected from the senior party members and of course they will oppose Andrew, as is to be expected from those who have hitched their waggon to Nick Griffin and will possibly lose their position if he is replaced.
I don't think they were exactly overjoyed by my revelation, but then that's democracy.

Whether Andrew can get in is another matter in view of the biased party structure which favours the leader and the vested interests that depend on his remaining leader.

This is not to decry Nick Griffin, just that I/we think Andrew Brons will make us more electable and a stronger force in British politics.

Personalities are unimportant, it is influence and ultimately power that counts and to that end we shall continually strive as we must if we are to rescue our country from the thieves and incompetents which now run it.

WE WILL PREVAIL AS A MOVEMENT WHATEVER HAPPENS.

Sorry to be a Jeremiah::

In 2009, the highest number of citizenships granted in the EU was by the United Kingdom (204 000 persons)

There is much in the media these days about immigration and many of the articles discuss just how concerned our government is about this, we see headlines stating that the government is going to crack down hard and that immigration will be reduced drastically..Here are just a few links -

Tens of thousands of migrants will be barred from settling in the...

UK Immigration: Government Unveils Plans To Restrict Permanent Settlement By Breaking The...

Migration settlement cuts planned

All good stuff you may well say, well one statistic amongst many that are not overly publicized is the following.


Eurostat news release 10/6/11

In 2009, the highest number of citizenships were granted by the United Kingdom (204 000 persons),

France (136 000) and Germany (96 000), which together accounted for more than half of all citizenships granted by the EU27 Member States.

And that's not the whole story:-

The number of citizenship's granted can be related to the number of resident foreigners i.e. non-nationals resident in the Member State. The highest rates were registered in Portugal (5.8 citizenships granted per 100 resident foreigners), Sweden (5.3), Poland and the United Kingdom (both 4.8), and the lowest rates in the Czech Republic (0.3), Lithuania and Slovakia (both 0.5). On average, 2.4 citizenships were granted per 100 resident foreigners in the EU27.

The United Kingdom is in the top end of the league again - what a surprise.

Here is the rest of the table :-

Acquisition of citizenship in the EU27, 2009

	Total number of citizenships acquired in thousands Citizenships acquired per: 2008 2009 100 resident foreigners* 1 000 inhabitants
EU27	698.6	776.1	2.4	1.6
Belgium	37.7	32.8	3.2	3.0
Bulgaria	7.1	9.2	:	1.2
Czech Republic	1.2	1.1	0.3	0.1
Denmark	6.0	6.9	2.1	1.2
Germany	94.5	96.1	1.3	1.2
Estonia	2.1	1.7	0.8	1.2
Ireland	3.2	4.5	0.9	1.0
Greece	16.9	17.0	1.8	1.5
Spain	84.2	79.6	1.4	1.7
France	137.3	135.8	3.6	2.1
Italy	53.7	59.4	1.5	1.0
Cyprus	3.5	4.1	3.2	5.1
Latvia	4.2	3.2	0.8	1.4
Lithuania	0.3	0.2	0.5	0.1
Luxembourg	1.2	4.0	1.9	8.1
Hungary	8.1	5.8	3.1	0.6
Malta	0.6	0.8	4.5	2.0
Netherlands	28.2	29.8	4.1	1.8
Austria	10.3	8.0	0.9	1.0
Poland	1.8	2.5	4.8	0.1
Portugal	22.4	25.6	5.8	2.4
Romania	5.6	9.4	:	0.4
Slovenia	1.7	1.8	2.5	0.9
Slovakia	0.5	0.3	0.5	0.0
Finland	6.7	3.4	2.4	0.6
Sweden	30.5	29.5	5.3	3.2
United Kingdom	129.3	203.6	4.8	3.3
Iceland	0.9	0.7	3.0	2.3
Liechtenstein	0.3	0.1	:	2.9
Norway	10.3	11.4	3.8	2.4
Switzerland	44.4	43.4	2.6	5.6
Croatia	7.6	5.3	:	1.2
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia	1.1	0.8	:	0.4
Turkey	6.0	8.1	:	0.1

* Data on foreign population are not available or fully comparable for Bulgaria, Romania, Liechtenstein, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey.

: Data not available

Largest groups acquiring citizenship in the EU27 Member States, 2009

	Largest group Second largest group Third largest group Fourth largest group Previous citizens of % Previous citizens of % Previous citizens of % Previous citizens of %
EU27*	Morocco	7.7	Turkey	6.7	India	4.0	Ecuador	3.6
BE	Morocco	24.2	Turkey	8.4	Italy	5.6	Dem. Republic of Congo	5.0
BG	Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia	47.9	Moldova	29.1	Serbia	5.9	Israel	5.2
CZ	Ukraine	43.7	Slovakia	12.0	Russia	5.9	Poland	5.0
DK	Iraq	17.6	Afghanistan	11.6	Turkey	7.6	Stateless*	6.7
DE	Turkey	25.6	Iraq	5.3	Serbia	4.3	Poland	4.0
EE	Recognised non-citizen3	93.2	Russia	5.2	Ukraine	1.2	Lithuania	0.2
IE	Nigeria	10.0	Philippines	9.1	India	7.4	South Africa	6.9
EL	Albania	83.9	Georgia	3.2	Russia	2.4	Turkey	1.0
ES	Ecuador	32.3	Colombia	20.7	Morocco	8.4	Peru	8.0
FR	Morocco	19.2	Algeria	15.2	Tunisia	6.8	Turkey	6.8
IT	Albania	16.0	Morocco	15.3	Romania	4.6	Tunisia	3.5
CY	Greece	9.1	Russia	7.9	Ukraine	5.7	United Kingdom	5.3
LV	Recognised non-citizen3	95.6	Russia	1.7	Ukraine	1.3	Stateless*	0.4
LT	Stateless*	52.2	Russia	28.6	Ukraine	11.8	Belarus	5.4
LU	Portugal	30.9	Italy	9.0	Germany	8.0	France	6.9
HU	Romania	65.6	Serbia and Montenegro**	11.6	Ukraine	9.6	Belarus	2.2
MT	Australia	38.2	United Kingdom	12.6	Canada	5.1	South Africa	4.7
NL	Morocco	18.5	Turkey	14.0	Suriname	3.8	Iraq	2.3
AT	Serbia	20.5	Bosnia and Herzegovina	18.3	Turkey	15.6	Croatia	5.5
PL	Ukraine	35.0	Belarus	14.3	Russia	6.5	Armenia	3.2
PT	Cape Verde	19.4	Brazil	14.5	Moldova	10.7	Guinea Bissau	8.4
RO	Moldova	67.2	Stateless*	22.0	Ukraine	1.4	Israel	1.4
SI	Bosnia and Herzegovina	27.2	Serbia	15.2	Croatia	11.0	Italy	10.5
SK	Ukraine	29.4	Czech Republic	18.3	Serbia	16.4	Hungary	6.5
FI	Russia	30.1	Somalia	8.5	Iraq	6.1	Afghanistan	5.4
SE	Iraq	10.8	Finland	8.2	Thailand	4.5	Turkey	4.1
UK	India	13.0	Pakistan	10.3	Bangladesh	5.9	Philippines	5.8
IS	Poland	21.0	Philippines	14.6	Serbia	10.4	Vietnam	7.0
LI	Turkey	32.0	Switzerland	27.2	Austria	9.7	Serbia and Montenegro**	7.8
NO	Somalia	15.2	Iraq	11.1	Afghanistan	7.5	Iran	6.9
CH	Serbia and Montenegro**	20.4	Italy	11.1	Germany	9.3	Turkey	6.0
HR	Bosnia and Herzegovina	48.4	Serbia	9.7	Australia	6.7	Chile	4.1
MK	Serbia	39.6	Albania	22.8	Austria	5.6	Turkey	4.3

* A stateless person is someone who is not recognized as a citizen of any State

** Data refer to Serbia & Montenegro, which existed between 2003 and 2006

• Citizenship is the legal bond between an individual and a state, acquired by birth, naturalisation or other means according to national legislation. Naturalisation is the process by which a state grants its citizenship through a formal act on the application of the individual concerned. Other ways of granting citizenship may include spouses of nationals, minors adopted by nationals and descendants of nationals born abroad returning to the country of origin of their ancestors.

 The largest numbers coming into the UK are NON EU citizens and the above numbers do not appear to take into account the number of EU citizens that enter the UK.

Immigrants are still flooding in and despite all the rhetoric it would appear that the government is not going to do much about it at all - there is no evidence that they are implementing any measures that are effective in reducing or stopping the thousands coming into the UK each week.

We must also remember that the above table shows the numbers that are granted citizenship, the numbers entering the country either legally or illegally will be in addition to those being granted citizenship

This paragraph is very interesting

The number of citizenship's granted can be related to the number of resident foreigners i.e. non-nationals resident in the Member State. The highest rates were registered in Portugal (5.8 citizenships granted per 100 resident foreigners), Sweden (5.3), Poland and the United Kingdom (both 4.8), and the lowest rates in the Czech Republic (0.3), Lithuania and Slovakia (both 0.5). On average, 2.4 citizenships were granted per 100 resident foreigners in the EU27.

Therefore the UK has granted 4.8 citizenship,s per 100 immigrants - the UK has granted a total of 204 ,000, hence 204,000 is 4.8% of the total number of immigrants in the UK which makes the total number of immigrants approximately 5,000,000 roughly double what the government figures say

The above calculation is very basic and I would suggest that the 5 million mark is low

Blatantly nicked from here

http://uppompeii1.uppompeii.com/

Morg
.