On May 9, Europe celebrates Europe Day. This year marks 75 years since Robert Schuman, then Foreign Minister of France, presented a simple yet profound idea: what if we removed the barriers that divide us and instead allowed our countries to become so interconnected that harming one another would ultimately mean harming ourselves?
Fifty years later, in the year 2000, a bridge was built that came to embody Schuman’s vision: the Öresund Bridge, linking Sweden and Denmark across a strait that has long been marked political, cultural, and economic division. To commemorate Europe Day this year, the Centre for European Studies participated in a celebration held in Malmö, organized by Europe Direct Lund and Malmö University. As part of the event, the Centre hosted a seminar to mark the 25th anniversary of the Öresund Bridge and reflect on its significance for the broader European integration project, particularly at a time when the idea of open borders is increasingly challenged.
Maria Strömvik, senior lecturer in Political Science at Lund University and deputy director of the Centre, spoke at the seminar and reflected on what the bridge represents. She recalled the day it was inaugurated as a turning point for the region. With the opening of the bridge, goods and people could move seamlessly between Sweden and Denmark, transforming a once-divided area into a shared space. It also brought with it a wave of optimism for Europe and for Sweden’s role within it. The optimism of the early 2000s had by now, however, given way to a renewed focus on border controls and national security, calling into question the very ideals that the bridge represent.
Maria recalled how, at the time, her trips from Lund to Copenhagen were marked by joy and ease. Today, however, she noted that the journey feels neither smooth nor particularly enjoyable. Maria was particularly frustrated with the fence separating inbound and outbound trains erected at Hyllie station. Introduced by the Swedish government in 2015 as a temporary response to the migration crisis, these border checks were never intended to be permanent. Yet nearly a decade later they remain.
Maria argued that these border controls are not primarily a nuisance to passengers, who now are routinely stopped, checked, and required to show identification, even though they are travelling within the Schengen Area, where such controls are not allowed. They also raise legal concerns by contradicting core principles relating to free movement which is the bedrock of the European treaties.
In her presentation, Maria offered several proposals for how the border controls at Hyllie could be removed. First, politicians in the Öresund region need to raise their voices and clearly convey to the Swedish government in Stockholm just how burdensome the border controls had become. Second, creative thinking is essential. Maria proposed that the Öresund Region establish a joint regional office in Brussels, similar to existing cross-border regional offices such as the one run jointly by Tyrol, South Tyrol, and Trentino. She also floated the idea of an Öresund Parliament, in which representatives from both sides of the strait would be given a formal say on cross-border matters. Finally, Maria stressed the importance of youth engagement, urging young people to take a more active role in advocating for fewer barriers in the region.
To illustrate her point, Maria invited three students on stage, each representing a different side of the strait: Jesper Mühlback Hansen from the University of Copenhagen, Detelina Marinova from Malmö University, and Fabio Cavaliere from Lund University. Each had encountered difficulties caused by Sweden’s reintroduction of border controls. Jesper, who once travelled directly by train from Helsingør to Skåne, now had to switch trains along the way. What had been a straightforward journey had now become unnecessarily time-consuming. Fabio spoke about the difficulties faced by his non-European friends. Although they have settled in Sweden, they find themselves unable to cross into Denmark, effectively cut off from half of the region that was meant to function as one.
In the final part of the session, the students posed questions to Maria. Jesper asked whether she believed the border had weakened the shared identity and cultural connection between Skåne and Copenhagen. Maria was unequivocal in her response: the presence of the border controls has diluted the sense of belonging and togetherness that once defined the region. Fabio followed up by asking how such borders could be prevented from returning if they were ever removed. Maria answered that people needed to be more rebellious. The issue of borders, she said, is simply not discussed enough. Too often in Europe, borders are taken for granted. That complacency, in her view, explains why they continue to persist in the region.
Detelina finally asked whether there are ever legitimate justifications for borders, especially in times of crisis. Maria offered a thought-provoking answer. During the pandemic, she argued, the placement of the border between Sweden and Denmark was rather arbitrary. It could just as easily have been drawn between Scania and Stockholm. Her conclusion was stark: the only moment when a border between Denmark and Sweden would be truly justified, she said, is when the idea of the EU itself ceases to exist.