This is going to seem a bit extreme, but really I just want to get a general opinion on this poll, and perhaps we could compare results with the Israel/Palestine poll. Who knows, we might learn something interesting.

The topic of debate? Northern Ireland...

Now, the situation is far from the height of tension felt in Israel at present, with an IRA ceasefire seeming fairly strong since Tony Blairs coming to power - although there have been a couple of hiccups over the last few years which made some people worry that the situation was never going to improve. Many still feel that way.

I also agree that the UK is not under the same pressure as Israel, in that we are not surrounded by nations who seem to support terrorism against us, that is not in debate. The UK also manages to maintain good relations with the Republic of Ireland, and the two nations have worked together to try and find a way to bring about peace.

What I want to debate is, what side do people sympathise with? Just the same as the Israel/Palestine poll.

For all the differences, there are still some connections between the two situations. For a start, both the UK and Israel have sent troops into disperse crowds and hunt for members of the relevant terrorist groups. In Britain, this has lead to unfortunate events like Bloody Sunday in 1971 where 14 civilians were killed by British soldiers, in 1981 Margaret Thatcher allowed hunger strikers to die, and wrongful imprisonment of Northern Irish catholics. The IRA have fought back in much the same way, instead utilising cars instead of people to bomb civilian areas in Northern Ireland and England.

There is peace for now, but please try and forget about that for now. If you must, perhaps refer to the situation when there wasn't a ceasefire. Was the British fight against terrorism as justified as Israels? Was the IRA pushed into a corner, responding the only way they could, as people have explained the actions of Hamas? Or are you truly neutral, is the main thing to be impartial and search for a compromised peace?

Unionists support the existence of the UK, whereas the Republicans obviously want a united Ireland.

I think I am neutral.

This is truly a heartbreaking situation to which I see no solution. The basic political conflict is, of course, inflamed by the religious conflict. The highest possible praise to good people on both sides who have worked for peace.

I would probably say the same thing about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. There seems to be virtually no hope whatsoever.

Oops forgot to vote

I too am neutral on this matter, much for the same reasons I am neutral on the Israelie Palestine conflict. Like Victoria, I struggle to find hope for either situation. Conflicts over terrirory are always difficult, adding in religion makes it even more dangerous for both those living on the disputed land and those who support one side or another.

I do not support the right of Northern Ireland to secede. The majority of the people in Northern Ireland are in favor of remaining British citizens. So long as that is the case Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom. I am neutral however, at least concerning the various factions who have carried out terrorist attacks in the UK. A terrorist is a terrorist, regardless of whether he is a Republican or a Unionist. Both should be punished by the law.

DOWN WITH THE BRITISH!! Ireland belongs to the Irish people, no the brits. the IRA, while they have used some questionable tactics are fighting to get THEIR land that was stolen by the british. what if canada annexed maine? if the people of maine wanted to be part of canada, would you not say "it's OURS we want it back!" ? that is what the irish people are saying by trying to drive the british out of their lands. give northern Ireland back to the Irish!

It's a very complicated issue, but I think it's worth clearing up some common misconceptions before we start.
Religion per se isn't really the issue. For historical reasons there is an overlap in most cases, but it's not a religious conflict.
With reference to whether the north can secede from the UK first of all. Some people don't think they have a right because the majority in the north are Unionist, and this has been agreed to by both sides. Leaving that aside for a moment, the republican movement wouldn't accept that as a valid argument on the basis that the six counties are an artificial construct to engineer precisely such a majority.
Secondly, the violence that we know from the seventies and eighties was not due entirely to the question of secession. Until the late 1960s it was relatively quiet on the nationalist side, but not on the loyalist side, with gangs of loyalists and the northern Irish police conducting what amounts to pogroms on the nationalist areas - burning people out of their homes, beatings, that kind of thing. Originally, the British army was brought in to protect the Catholic community and they were welcomed, but their behaviour soon fell into line with that of the other forces.
There was also a form of apartheid being practiced. Catholics were routinely and openly discriminated against with regard to jobs and housing.
So civil rights marches were organised, and unfortunately people were shot by the army. It appears that the British forces felt this was an appropriate time to weed out troublemakers. As is the nature of such things, it was like cutting a head off the hydra.
On balance, I think the terrorism of the 70s and 80s was somewhat exacerbated by the attitude of the British people. They staunchly refused to engage with any of the issues and would not 'negotiate with terrorists'. By refusing to understand why terrorism was happening and by supporting such a hard line under Thatcher, they made movement very difficult, and so the IRA resorted to what they called 'spectaculars' in places like birmingham and Guildford. (Of course, locking up the wrong people for these crimes didn't help.) They described this tactic as bringing the fight to the British who pretty much ignored what was happening in their name unless it took their lives too. I suppose the question of what constitutes an innocent civillian in such a conflict is the logical one here. And I don't know, myself. Politicians, police and the army act with the imprimatur of the citizens in a democracy, so in a sense, they are not 'innocent', I can see that logic, but it's very harsh and brutal. Currently, collusion between the RUC and paramilitaries is being cited in many murders and also in the Dublin/Monaghan bombings in the early 1970s - which my Mum and I were lucky to escape unharmed from.
Ultimately, both sides wore each other down. They recognised it was a stalemate and that neither could achieve their aims by the methods they were using, and I think that will be the only way out in Israel/Palestine too.