All the thorny questions the EU needs to answer to make 'return hubs' a reality

The European Union must outsource parts of its migration policy – or at least try. That was the main message of the 27 EU leaders when they met last week in Brussels and agreed to explore "new ways" to curb irregular migration.

The endorsement was deliberately vague to ensure as much room for maneuver as possible. Still, there was one particular idea that had everybody, including Ursula von der Leyen, thinking and talking: "return hubs."

"It's not trivial but this is a topic that is being discussed," the European Commission president said, confirming the "hubs" are officially on the table.

The plan, which has yet to be detailed, will cover asylum seekers whose applications have been denied and are therefore not entitled to stay in the bloc.

While nationals from Syria, Eritrea, Ukraine, Mali and Afghanistan have high chances of receiving protection, others, like those from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Senegal, Nigeria and Venezuela, have a recognition rate below 20% and are, in most cases, turned down.

Today, a rejected applicant stays in a member state until deportation is carried out. However, under the new scheme, some (or even all) of these migrants could be transferred to facilities located outside EU territory, to await their final removal.

The project might look rather straightforward but it faces a myriad of legal, economic and operational challenges that might make it impossible to become the success story leaders envision.

Here are some of the questions the EU needs to answer.

To make the untested plan a reality, Brussels will need to find a non-EU country willing to host the hub inside its territory.

Previous attempts at outsourcing show a preference for low-income nations. The UK and Denmark explored controversial schemes