The European Union has reached a landmark agreement to overhaul its asylum and migration policy, approving a framework that would allow member states to establish offshore detention and return centres — known as "return hubs" — in third countries outside the bloc. The deal, brokered between the European Commission, the Council of the EU, and the European Parliament, still requires formal ratification but represents one of the most significant shifts in European migration policy in years. Officials say the new rules are designed to accelerate the removal of people whose asylum claims have been rejected and whose deportation to their home countries has proven impossible.

The model already has a working prototype. Italy, under Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, has been operating a detention facility in Gjadër, in northern Albania, under a bilateral agreement signed with Tirana. Originally intended to process asylum seekers intercepted at sea before a ruling on their cases, Italian courts repeatedly blocked that use. Rome repurposed the camp earlier this year, transferring 80 people who had already exhausted the asylum process in Italy — effectively becoming the first operational European return hub. Under the newly agreed EU rules, member states will now have broad latitude to establish similar arrangements independently, with EU-level oversight significantly curtailed following amendments pushed through parliament by the far-right ESN group with support from the centre-right EPP bloc.

A working group of five countries — Denmark, Austria, Greece, Germany, and the Netherlands — has been driving negotiations with potential partner states. According to sources cited by AFP, discussions are focused on up to twelve candidate countries: Rwanda, Ghana, Senegal, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania, Egypt, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Montenegro, and Ethiopia. Human rights organisations have sharply criticised the list, noting that many of those countries fall far short of the international human rights standards the EU's own framework nominally requires of partners. Critics, including French MEP Mélissa Camara, have called the agreement a "historic retreat" on human rights within the bloc, warning that it opens the door to the detention of minors and expanded surveillance. Humanitarian groups caution that the reforms risk undermining the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and could result in people being sent to countries where they face persecution or torture.

The EU agreement also carries implications beyond its member states. Switzerland, which is not an EU member but is bound to the Schengen area's legal framework, will likely be required to adopt the new return regulation as part of the Schengen acquis — the body of common rules all Schengen countries must follow. Swiss political parties on the right have already filed parliamentary motions calling for return hubs along European lines, though the Swiss federal government has previously expressed scepticism about their feasibility. A government-commissioned expert study published earlier this year concluded that return hubs were not a universal solution to irregular migration, but acknowledged they carried the most realistic potential among third-country models — particularly for rejected asylum seekers whose removal is legally possible but logistically protracted. Costs are expected to be steep: Italy has estimated up to 800 million euros for building and running two centres with roughly 3,000 places over five years.

The broader agreement reflects a sustained rightward shift in European migration politics, accelerated by the rise of nationalist parties in the 2024 European Parliament elections. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has framed the measures as a necessary tool to prevent a repeat of the 2015 refugee crisis, when approximately one million people arrived in Europe. Critics, however, draw pointed comparisons to the hardline deportation policies of US President Donald Trump's administration, arguing that Europe is building a parallel enforcement architecture rather than learning from its shortcomings. Key legal questions — including the maximum duration of detention in the hubs, which national law applies, and what rights detainees hold — remain unresolved, leaving advocates warning of what one commentator called "black holes" in the rule of law.