My main concern is not with the right-wing parties themselves, but with how they have become a cause of the rise of these political parties in all of Europe, and how the European Union has helped this increase. The causes can be determined in terms of economic stability as well as the security of the population and state borders. The rise of the far right remains significant today due to the lack of full resolution, or at least the lack of positive results from these resolutions. In this essay, a brief history of the far right will be explained to better understand the reasons behind the ideology of these far-right parties, as well as the economic and security aspects. Two of the main arguments in favor of these parties will also be discussed. . Next, I will analyze some EU resolutions and the rise of the far right in some EU member states. Finally, the essay will conclude with the question of whether or not actions taken by the European Union contributed to the rise of the far right, and how this happened. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essay From World War II to the 1980s, the far right was basically irrelevant to the political field in Europe. It was primarily linked to fascist ideology, known for its use of violence and its penchant for heavily criticized pre-war ideologies. But after the 1980s, the far right seemed to regain momentum and gain popularity. It is important to mention that this far right has nothing to do with the fascist ideology of the past and is trying to bring something new and different. This “new” right focuses primarily on business and the capitalist economy. In its characteristics we can find conservative thinking that tends towards maintaining the established social order and supports tradition, authority but, above all, nationalism. It is important to mention that with this line of thinking one can understand the reason why far-right parties oppose supranational institutions such as the European Union; “These forces have too much control over national governments.” The European Union was created to maintain a strong union between its members, to prevent another global tragedy like World War II, and to constitute a leading and strong economic bloc. To do this, it is clear that each member of the EU must abdicate in the face of certain national decisions, accepting the rules established by the EU in order to create a whole as a single organism. But at the same time, the nationalism of each country has pushed societies not only to oppose migrants, but also to oppose the EU as an institution. Considering what was mentioned previously, we can connect the immigration crisis that started in 2015 to the rise of far-right political parties. The emergence of right-wing populists is due to many different factors such as immigration, the euro crisis and terrorist attacks in countries like France and Brussels, but I can say that the migrant crisis is to the origin of all of the above. This situation may continue due to all the implications that the migrant crisis has for each state and the way in which some EU policies have been changed in ways that put some states in very difficult positions. This will be carefully explained later in the essay. I will now focus on the changes in the economic sector resulting from the immigrant crisis. The migrant crisis in Europe hasa huge impact on the economies of EU members. According to renowned journalist Rakesh Sharma, there are three main impacts. First, the increase in social sector spending increases due to the arrival of migrants in countries, because receiving countries often have to spend their countries' money to help migrants and provide them with housing and education , until refugees become an active contributor to expenses. the local economy, by working. As a result, nations have had to spend more money “socially”, instead of allocating it to their citizens. Second, refugees tend to modify the local labor market. This can increase the unemployment rate due to the displacement of local workers. Competition to take on work is now not only between local citizens but also against skilled labor from other countries. And finally, the increase in overall demand. Sharma states that “new migrants represent potential markets for new services” (2015), which is a positive thing. With this in mind, we might ask why do these impacts contribute to fueling feelings of xenophobia? It can be said that the poorest populations in Europe quickly felt that the increase in budgetary spending on social benefits was mainly aimed at refugees and only at them. “They benefited from privileged access to benefits and financial assistance, while they (local citizens) themselves were losing it.” The EU Action Plan for the Integration of Third Country Nationals (2016) established that all EU members collaborate most on integration and provide the services necessary to do so. But given the 2008 global economic crisis that the EU struggled to manage, they found themselves taking high-risk measures to try to prevent another one. Economic instability across the continent has forced the EU to “cut spending in almost every sector of people's daily lives”; it was the decision to make. But we can see that this conflicts with new decisions to care for asylum seekers. By more recent decisions, we refer to encouraging EU members to devote their efforts and resources to helping refugees. These “responsibilities” include education, asylum paperwork, housing, medical assistance, fingertip procedure and much more. Seeing two completely different reactions to two different issues affecting society helped strengthen the far-right position. “This is considered problematic/fundamental by these far-right parties, because in this case the European Union would focus on the well-being of the European Union rather than the well-being of individual states.” On the other hand, we can see the problematic security emergency in Europe. Lehne, a specialist in relations between the EU and its members, said public concern about refugees intensified when Islamic terrorism and ever-increasing crime rates began to rise in their countries and created an associated link with the mass movement. influx of migrants. It is very important, as he mentions, to keep in mind that these acts of terrorism were perpetrated by Europeans and not by refugees. Yet the media has not made any positive contribution to this situation, as it mainly focuses on incidents related to asylum seekers, leading society to view the two as one. We understand here why the feeling of insecurity has increased throughout Europe. Furthermore, the EU has strengthened theDublin Regulation for all its members. It establishes that the country of entry (for refugees) must be responsible for processing the asylum application. We can see that due to their geographical location, some countries are facing a disproportionate burden, for example Italy and Greece. However, there have been times when these countries have “neglected” their responsibilities and allowed refugees to move deeper into the continent to seek asylum. The European Commission, aware of the problem, decided to modify the Dublin regulation. Even if they maintained the initial responsibility given to the country of first entry, if that state received a considerable number of refugees, a “corrective allocation mechanism” would trigger the transfer of migrants to a less burdened state.” We can now see how the refugee crisis is putting great pressure on the national borders of some EU countries. Many EU members believe that the European Union may need to focus on a more intense action plan for the entry of refugees into their countries. Others decided that the EU should “not take in any refugees as this would only cause problems and compromise the security of the European Union”. While they are mainly concerned about "prioritizing humanitarian concerns and allowing hundreds of thousands of refugees to cross their borders", others do not feel "particularly enthusiastic about welcoming refugees fleeing war and poverty in Syria. At this point, a strong wave of Islamophobia and xenophobia spread across Central European countries. To fully understand how these economic and security factors affect the European Union, the policies of the European Union have really strengthened the presence of far-right parties in political life. areas of concern in Europe. For example Hungary. In 2015, Hungary planned to build a four-meter-high wall to protect its borders. The wall was going to be built with Serbia with the aim of preventing refugees from crossing. Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister, openly accused the previously mentioned EU plan to resettle asylum seekers and refugees in member states as “crazy”. From then on, he made his administration and campaigns increasingly open to nationalist ideals. Last April, he obtained his third term. His main subject of speech: immigration. Right after his victory, he declared that he was giving his fellow Hungarians "the opportunity to defend themselves and to defend Hungary." Not only has he been called a racist, but he is also seen as the representative of the Visegrad Group which “opposes EU plans to force countries to accept migrants under a quota system”. Hungary has a history of far-right ideology that has grown slowly over the years, mainly since the fall of the Soviet Union. The spread of the idea that immigrants steal jobs and endanger citizens' security, as well as growing disagreement with EU policies, have contributed to the rapid popularity of the Orbán administration. It got to the point where Hungary called a referendum against the relocation resolution. This is the case for the rest of the political systems of the Visegrad group. Former Prime Minister Janez Jansa (de donde) has repeatedly stated that he wants Slovenia "to become a country that will prioritize the well-being and security of Slovenes." So much so that during his campaign he formed a tactical alliance with Viktor Orbán against migrants, “borrowing his tactic of stoking fears against migrants”..