The Other Speed: How the EU Divides Its Working Class

The EU is preparing to formally divide itself into two classes of member state, the inner core that decides, and the outer periphery that is told to catch up. The Romanian apartment block hit by a Russian drone on June 1 is in the second class. The architecture has been operating this way for thirty-five years. June 2026 is the month it stops pretending.

By A. Kade

On Sunday, June 1, 2026, a Russian drone hit an apartment block in Romania.

Romania is a member of the European Union. Romania is a member of NATO. Romania has been a member of both for almost twenty years. The drone was reported by Romanian authorities and confirmed by Romania's Ministry of National Defence. There were no military targets in the apartment block. There were ordinary working-class Romanians, on a Sunday, in their homes.

The European Council met four days later, on June 5, at a summit in the Western Balkans. The summit conclusions did not centre the strike. They centred the question that has been animating EU institutional politics since February: whether the bloc should formally divide itself into a fast inner core and a slower outer periphery, and whether the June 2026 deadline set by Emmanuel Macron, set, in other words, to fall in roughly four weeks' time, should be the moment at which that division is institutionalised.

The country whose apartment block had just been hit is in the slower lane.

This piece is about what that means.

•••

The proposal

In February 2026, at a retreat held at Alden Biesen Castle in Belgium, EU leaders publicly converged on a position that had been moving quietly for years. Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, had sent a letter to capitals in advance of the meeting. The letter stated that if the 27 member states could not agree on what she called "ambitious" economic reforms, then a smaller coalition, a minimum of nine countries, the threshold set under the Treaty of Lisbon's "enhanced cooperation" provisions, would proceed without the others.

She was supported by Macron, by the new German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, by Mario Draghi (former president of the European Central Bank, attending as special guest), and by Enrico Letta (former Italian prime minister). The four men, and von der Leyen, agreed: Europe could no longer afford to "move at the speed of the slowest." That phrase, uttered in von der Leyen's closing press conference, is the one to hold onto.

The German finance minister, Lars Klingbeil, named the structure openly the previous month. He called it the E6, Germany, France, Poland, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, six countries that would, in his proposal, collaborate on defence spending and economic policy ahead of the rest of the Union. He extended what he described as an "open invitation" to other member states to join. We are providing the impetus, he said. Other countries are welcome to follow.

Welcome to follow. There is the architecture, named in plain English, by the man who runs the German treasury.

The June 2026 deadline, the one we are now in, was for the broad economic reset. The Capital Markets Union, rebranded as the Savings and Investment Union, is to mobilise, in von der Leyen's words, up to €470 billion of private capital across the bloc, with or without the consent of all twenty-seven members. The 28th Regime, a parallel corporate-law framework allowing EU companies to be incorporated in a uniform inner-core jurisdiction within forty-eight hours, was also tabled at Alden Biesen and is scheduled for advancement this month.

If sufficient progress has not been made by the end of June, von der Leyen has confirmed, other options will be considered. Other options means enhanced cooperation. Enhanced cooperation means the inner six, plus willing partners, decide. The remaining twenty-one, including Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Hungary, the three Baltic states, Croatia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta, Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Luxembourg, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Austria, the Czech Republic, accept the outcome or wait their turn.

The countries that have spent the last twenty years being told that EU membership was their path to prosperity are now being told, by the bloc's most powerful members, that they are moving too slowly.

•••

What "moving too slowly" actually means

The structural diagnosis of the two-speed proposal is that the inner core is competitive, dynamic, productive, and forward-looking, while the periphery is sluggish, vetocracy-prone, and dragging down the bloc's collective capacity to compete with the United States and China. This is the official narration. It is the narration of Macron, of Draghi, of Letta, of every EU competitiveness report published in the last decade.

It is also a narration that conceals something specific about what the inner core has been doing to the periphery for thirty-five years, and what the periphery has been doing for the inner core, and which of the two is being characterised, today, as the slow one.

The Eastern and Southern peripheries of the EU are not slow because they failed to modernise. They are slow because the architecture of the EU economy, as it has actually operated since the eastern enlargements began in 2004, structurally extracted from them in ways that were not technically illegal and were narrated, at every step, as integration and convergence.

Romania, for instance. The country whose apartment block was hit on June 1.

Romania entered the EU in 2007. Within fifteen years, more than five million Romanians had left to work abroad, Italy, Spain, Germany, the UK, France. Five million. In a country of nineteen million. That is one of the largest peacetime population displacements in modern European history, and it happened across a single generation, on the basis of an EU labour-mobility regime that was sold to Romania as "freedom of movement" and that functioned, in practice, as the most aggressive brain-drain and skill-drain operation the continent has run since the Second World War. Romanian doctors went to staff German hospitals. Romanian construction workers went to build Spanish apartments. Romanian agricultural labourers went to pick Italian and Dutch produce. Romanian carers went to look after British and French elderly people. The remittances they sent home kept Romanian villages alive while emptying them of their working-age population. The country whose labour was being extracted was simultaneously, by the EU's own Eurostat figures, paid less per hectare in Common Agricultural Policy subsidies than the country whose farms they staffed. Romanian farmers receive a fraction of what French and German farmers receive per hectare under the same Common Agricultural Policy. The same Union. The same fields, more or less. Different rates per hectare, structurally encoded.

This is not an accident. This is what the architecture was for.

The same pattern operates across the Eastern enlargement countries. Slovakia became the per-capita car manufacturing capital of the world, building vehicles for German brands at Slovak wages. Hungary became a major site for German automotive supply chains. Romania assembled cars, washing machines, and electronic components for Western European brands while its own consumer purchasing power remained, by Eurostat figures, well below the EU average. Bulgaria provided cheap services and tourism. The Baltic states provided digital labour. Poland provided everything, labour, agricultural land, industrial sites, military buffer, and most recently, an artillery-shell manufacturing hub for European rearmament against Russia.

The inner six were not richer than the periphery because they worked harder. They were richer than the periphery because the architecture of the single market, the eurozone monetary structure, the common agricultural policy allocation system, and the freedom-of-movement labour rules together produced an aggregate transfer of value from East to West that has been one of the largest in EU history. The Eastern Europeans, for thirty-five years, paid the West's bills with their cheap labour, their relocated factories, their drained populations, and their tolerance of being characterised as "developing" while doing the actual development.

Now they are being told they are too slow.

•••

What "too slow" means when the drones come

The Romanian apartment block was not the first.

Russian drones have been entering Romanian airspace and Romanian territory throughout the war in Ukraine. They have struck in the Danube delta, in border villages, in farmland, and now in residential blocks. Romanian authorities have logged hundreds of airspace violations. The Romanian Ministry of National Defence has, in each case, issued a statement of condemnation. The European Union has, in each case, prepared sanctions.

The structural fact behind the strikes is the one that does not get said clearly enough in Brussels.

Romania, Poland, the Baltic states, Slovakia, Hungary, the countries on the eastern frontier of the EU, are the buffer zone for the rest of the Union. They are the territorial layer between the Russian Federation and the inner six. The drones that hit Romanian apartment blocks are not hitting Berlin or Paris or Madrid because Romania is between Russia and Berlin and Paris and Madrid. The Eastern frontier countries provide their bodies and their territory and their air defence systems as the literal physical absorbing layer for the war the rest of the EU is helping to fund and to arm, and for which the inner six are simultaneously debating whether to accelerate the EU's economic decision-making without the consent of the buffer countries themselves.

The eastern frontier states have been told for two decades that they are full members of the European Union. They are now being told that the meaning of full membership is to absorb the bombs while the inner six debate whether they get a vote in the institutional reform that follows.

This is not a metaphor. The Russian drone struck the apartment block in Romania on June 1. The Western Balkans summit, where the inner six debated the next phase of "enhanced cooperation", explicitly bypassing the slower members, convened four days later. The two events were treated as separate news stories. They are not separate news stories. They are the same architecture, operating in two registers at once. The buffer zone bleeds. The inner core debates whether the buffer zone is moving fast enough.

Fuck them.

I use the word because polite English would be dishonest about the scale of what is being narrated as routine. The country whose ordinary working-class people were absorbing a Russian drone strike on a Sunday is being characterised, by the EU's most powerful member states, as the obstacle to EU competitiveness. Moving too slowly. That is the phrase. Moving too slowly while the drones come and the doctors leave and the wages remain a third of the inner-six average and the farm subsidies arrive at a discount and the cars are assembled at Slovak wages for German brands.

The inner six are not moving faster because they are more competent. The inner six are moving faster because they have spent thirty-five years moving with the wind of an extractive economic architecture that they themselves designed, and that they themselves benefit from, and that they are now proposing to formalise institutionally because the polite cover of pan-European solidarity has worn through.

The polite cover wore through some time ago. June 2026 is the month they stop pretending.

•••

The Ratchet, applied to the Union

In a piece published one week ago in this publication, I described a mechanism called the ratchet, the way every crisis of the last forty years has been sold to the public as a temporary emergency requiring temporary measures, and the way each "temporary" measure has become a permanent extraction that the working class has paid for in perpetuity.

The two-speed Europe proposal is the ratchet, applied to the EU's internal architecture.

The crisis being invoked is the geopolitical and economic competition with the United States and China. The Draghi report of 2024 named it: Europe must invest up to €800 billion annually or face "slow agony." The competitiveness narrative is real. The diagnosis is, in many ways, defensible. China's industrial policy is aggressive, the United States' new tariff regime is hostile, the European industrial base is stagnant, and the bloc's productivity growth has lagged for fifteen years.

But the response to the crisis, and this is the part the structural reader must hold onto, is being calibrated to benefit the inner six, and to lock in the architecture of extraction that has produced the periphery's stagnation in the first place. The Capital Markets Union, rebranded as the Savings and Investment Union, will mobilise European private savings into "strategic projects", strategic projects which will, in practice, be located disproportionately in the inner six, financed by savings disproportionately drawn from the periphery, with the returns disproportionately captured by the inner six's financial centres in Frankfurt, Paris, Amsterdam, and Milan. The 28th Regime, the parallel corporate-law framework, will allow EU companies to incorporate in a uniform inner-core jurisdiction within forty-eight hours, bypassing the slower regulatory regimes of the periphery, which is to say, bypassing the regulatory protections the periphery's working class has built into its national systems over decades of struggle. The "enhanced cooperation" clauses allow the inner six to bypass the unanimity rule, which is to say, to bypass the veto that the smaller and poorer countries have used to slow down policy proposals that would harm them.

This is the ratchet. The crisis is named. The "temporary" measures, enhanced cooperation, the 28th Regime, the Savings and Investment Union, are introduced. They will not be temporary. The institutional shift will be permanent. The smaller and poorer countries will lose their veto. Their workers will lose the regulatory floor. Their savings will flow toward inner-core financial centres. The inner six will be richer, the outer twenty-one will be poorer, and the polite vocabulary at every step will be competitiveness, integration, enhanced cooperation, moving forward.

The crisis is being used to deliver the institutional structure the inner six have wanted for at least a decade and that they could not get past the periphery's votes through ordinary procedure. So they are bypassing ordinary procedure. The Romanian who lost his apartment to a Russian drone on June 1 will be told, by the EU's most powerful institutions, that the bypassing is for his own good.

It is not for his own good.

•••

What the architecture pays the periphery in

There is a particular cruelty in the way this is being narrated.

The Eastern Europeans were told, in 2004 and 2007 and 2013, that EU membership was their path to prosperity. They voted yes, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Slovakia, the Baltics, Hungary, all of them, by overwhelming majorities, with the explicit promise that joining the Union meant joining the family. We are one. We move together. We rise together. This was the framing. This was the deal.

What they got was not what they were told they would get.

They got cheap-labour migration that drained their countries of their working-age populations. They got their factories converted into low-wage assembly sites for inner-six brands. They got CAP subsidies at a discount. They got their currencies pressured into eurozone discipline without the corresponding fiscal-transfer mechanisms that would have made the discipline survivable. They got asymmetric trade relationships that favored inner-six exporters. They got a regulatory framework that prioritised inner-six industrial interests over their own. And now, after thirty-five years of all of this, they are getting enhanced cooperation, the formal institutional confirmation that they are second-class members of an organisation they were told they had joined as equals.

Plus the drones. They get the drones now too.

The eastern frontier countries are spending, per capita, more on their defence than the inner six. Poland has militarised more aggressively, in proportional terms, than any other EU state. Romania is buying F-35s and Patriot missile systems at the limits of its budget. The Baltic states have re-armed at a rate that the rest of the Union has not begun to match. The periphery is, in literal cash terms, paying for the defence of the Union out of its own diminished public finances, while the inner six pledge, debate, and announce. Germany is now spending more than ever before, but the inner six's cumulative defence spending, normalised for GDP, still lags behind several of the eastern frontier countries.

This is what "moving faster" looks like when you trace the actual labour and the actual money. The countries the inner six are characterising as "slow" are the ones bleeding cash for the shared defence, bleeding population for the shared labour market, and now literally bleeding for the shared border.

The inner six are moving faster because they have less to do. Their armies are smaller relative to their economies. Their borders are interior. Their populations are aging slowly. Their factories are profitable. Their financial centres are receiving the savings of the periphery's workers. The "speed" the inner six are advertising is the speed of the system they have already built, the system that has been moving at exactly this speed, in exactly this direction, for thirty-five years, with exactly these winners and exactly these losers.

They are not asking to move faster. They are asking to formalise where the wealth and the votes have already moved.

•••

What this means for the people on the receiving end

The working class of Eastern Europe is, by any reasonable measure, the working class that paid the highest price for EU integration and received the smallest share of the benefits.

The Romanian construction worker who built apartments in Spain and could not afford to rent one in Bucharest. The Polish nurse who staffed a German hospital and whose own mother could not access the equivalent care at home. The Slovak factory worker who assembled cars for export to wealthy buyers in markets she could never afford to enter. The Bulgarian agricultural labourer who picked Italian tomatoes for less than the price of a single can of the sauce his work was producing. The Baltic engineer whose talent was harvested by Western firms while her own country struggled to retain the expertise needed to function. The Hungarian who watched her village empty year by year as the architecture extracted everyone under forty.

These are the people who carry the cost of the EU as it has actually operated.

They did not get cheap goods in compensation. The prices in their countries, adjusted for purchasing power, are higher than the prices in their incomes can absorb. They did not get democratic voice in compensation. The EU's most consequential decisions are made by qualified majority in the Council and by the Commission, and the inner six wield disproportionate weight in both. They did not get security in compensation. The drones come over their borders, not Berlin's. They did not get dignity in compensation. They are characterised, every year, in the EU's own institutional reports, as the underperforming members of the family they joined in good faith.

They got what the architecture wanted to give them, which was nothing they had been promised.

And now the architecture is preparing to formalise what it has been doing all along. To stop pretending that the slower lane is a temporary developmental position from which countries can graduate, and to begin treating it as the permanent institutional category it has functionally been since the eastern enlargement began.

Welcome to follow, the German finance minister said.

That is not what they were told. That is not what they voted for. That is not what they have been working for, for thirty-five years.

It is, however, what they are getting.

•••

The job of this piece

This piece does not propose an alternative architecture. The publication's previous pieces have refused that move, and this one refuses it too. The work of writing what is happening is not the same as the work of designing what should happen instead. The first work is what is in short supply. The second is what every well-funded think tank in Brussels is already doing, and what they have been doing for two decades while the architecture has continued to operate exactly as it operates.

What this piece does is name the gap. The gap between the speed of the slowest, the phrase the Commission president used in February, and the speed of the periphery's actual contributions, sacrifices, and casualties. The gap between welcome to follow, the German finance minister's invitation, and the historical record of who has been pulled along behind whom for the last thirty-five years. The gap between the apartment block in Romania and the Western Balkans summit four days later. The gap between the polite vocabulary of European integration and the actual mechanism of European extraction.

The mechanism is the architecture. The architecture has been operating quietly. June 2026 is the month it stops operating quietly.

There will be an enhanced-cooperation announcement before the summer is over. The Savings and Investment Union will advance with the inner six's preferred parameters. The 28th Regime will be drafted. The Macron deadline will be observed, in some form, regardless of whether the periphery has been allowed meaningful input. The headline in the inner-six press will be that the EU is finally getting its act together. The headline that should be written, and that this publication is writing instead, is that the EU is finally formalising the act it has been performing all along.

The Romanians know. The Poles know. The Bulgarians know. The Slovaks know. The Hungarians know. The Baltic states know. The Greeks and the Portuguese and the Cypriots and the Maltese know. The working-class people of all of those countries have been telling the architecture what they know, in election after election, for fifteen years, including in elections the inner six characterised as populist, far-right, irresponsible, anti-European. The architecture has not been listening because it does not need to listen. It has the votes it needs in the inner six. It will keep them.

What it does not have, and what no enhanced-cooperation framework can give it, is the consent of the populations whose labour, savings, sons, and apartment blocks it depends on.

The consent has been running out for some time. The architecture is now preparing to make the running-out irrelevant by removing the consent from the institutional structure.

The apartment block in Romania is still there, partly. The family is presumably still alive. The Russian drones will continue to come. The European Council will continue to meet. The June deadline will arrive. The enhanced-cooperation announcement will be made. The inner six will be richer. The outer twenty-one will be poorer, and angrier, and more openly held in contempt by the institutions they were told they had joined.

This is what the architecture pays its peripheries with.

It pays them with the polite fiction that they are full members.

It bills them in everything else.

•••

A. Kade writes The Kade Frequency, an investigative publication on institutional power, financial capture, and the long project of making democracy something real.

No sponsors. No filters. No propaganda.

•••

Sources and references

Two-speed Europe / enhanced cooperation: Ursula von der Leyen's letter to EU leaders (February 2026); Alden Biesen Castle retreat conclusions (12 February 2026); Macron's June 2026 deadline statement; reporting by Euronews, EUobserver, Politico Europe, CNBC, Reuters across February–June 2026. The "E6" formulation: German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil, January 2026.

The Draghi and Letta reports: Mario Draghi, The Future of European Competitiveness, published September 2024 (European Commission). Enrico Letta, Much More Than a Market, published April 2024 (European Council). Both authors invited as special guests to the Alden Biesen retreat.

Romanian drone strikes: Romanian Ministry of National Defence statements 2024–2026; Reuters reporting on June 1, 2026 incident; Romanian authorities' published log of airspace violations across 2024–2026.

Eastern European labour migration: Romanian National Institute of Statistics; World Bank migration data; Eurostat labour mobility statistics 2007–2025; figure of "more than five million Romanians abroad" widely reported across Romanian and EU-level press.

Common Agricultural Policy allocation asymmetry: European Commission CAP allocation data; the structural per-hectare gap between Western and Eastern member states is documented in successive CAP reform reports and ECA (European Court of Auditors) reviews.

Industrial relocation and Eastern manufacturing for Western brands: Eurostat industrial output and intra-EU trade data; documented in studies by Bruegel, ECFR, and IMF Eastern Europe Regional Economic Outlook reports.

Eastern frontier defence spending: NATO published defence-spending-as-percentage-of-GDP figures, 2022–2026; SIPRI Military Expenditure Database; Poland, the Baltic states, and Romania have consistently been among the highest defence-spending NATO members proportional to GDP.

The piece's authority depends on the sourcing being checkable. The anger is earned by the evidence, not by the writer. Every load-bearing claim above is traceable to a public document.