What are the implications of recent far-right gains in European Parliament elections?

The June 2024 European Parliament elections strengthened several far-right and nationalist parties, but they did not give them control of Parliament. The center-right European People’s Party remained the largest group, and mainstream parties still have routes to build majorities. The gains matter less as a single takeover than as a shift in the pressure surrounding EU decisions.

One likely effect is harder bargaining over EU migration policy. Parties that campaigned on tighter borders and fewer asylum arrivals can push those issues higher on the agenda, even when they lack the votes to pass their preferred measures. Their influence may also be felt in national governments, which help shape the positions EU leaders bring to Brussels.

Climate policy could face more resistance. Some right-wing parties oppose parts of the EU’s climate agenda, while others focus on the cost to farmers, industry, or households. That could slow or soften new measures and affect how existing EU climate legislation is implemented. It does not automatically undo laws already agreed: changing them still requires support across EU institutions.

On foreign policy, the picture is less uniform. Far-right parties differ over Russia, military aid, and support for Ukraine, so their increased presence does not translate into one shared position. More broadly, the Parliament’s fragmented right makes cooperation issue-by-issue likely. The elections also send a signal to national politicians: immigration, identity, and the cost of EU policies are central concerns for many voters, and mainstream parties may respond by adjusting their own positions.

So the practical implication is a tougher, more contested Parliament—not a unified far-right majority. How much changes will depend on which parties can work together and whether the center-right chooses to keep building majorities with pro-EU centrists or seek support further to the right.

The gains of far-right parties significantly break up the European Parliament. This division complicates the formulation of stable majorities. The legislative work will become extremely slow. It is more difficult to get EU-wide comprehensive laws to pass, so a larger consensus is needed.

Major policy priorities will move towards the right There will be a significant campaign on tougher immigration and borders. The policies that lend advantage to a sovereign country would be used as compared to the policies promoting EU integration There will be a lack of support towards common asylum rules.

Policies on climate and the environment suffer tremendous setbacks. The far-right parties, in general, are against strict Green Deal rules. This opposition will tend to slow down, or water down, important legislations on the environment. The climate leadership vision of the EU is now directly being contested

Policies that are social, to promote equality and inclusion will face more opposition. Far-right elements tend to oppose left-wing social movements. It will result in obstructing the process of promoting LGBTQ+ rights, gender equality as well as anti-discrimination policies on the EU level.

EU decision-making is going to be more controversial and less effective. The rise in far-right influence hinders united political positions on key problems such as support of Ukraine and enlargement of the EU. In-fighting is a direct weakening element of the Union on the international front as well as its working ability.

Conclusion:

Such noticeable gains severely interfere with the lawmaking agenda of the EU. The short-term consequences are stricter immigration laws, deterioration of climate-based action, and anti-social development resistance. Parliamentary gridlock will tend to become more pronounced and will impede common efforts to respond to external challenges. Such a move compels realignment of EU priorities and reduces its efficacy.