The stalemate that the EU institutions had reached in the process of forming the Commission seems to have been overcome. In the game of cross vetoes of the commissioners heard in the Parliament, everything was in fact at a standstill. Mainly because of the destructive power of Dana in Spain. This has exacerbated the political tension between the PP and the PSE in a mutual reckoning of consequences. A tension that could only affect the European Parliament, since the Spanish S&D and EPP delegations are among the largest and most influential. With the Spanish president of the S&D, Iratxe Garcia Perez, who, in order to protect Ribera, had vetoed Fitto on the grounds that he was a member of the ECR. That is, not part of the so-called "Ursula" majority. But the little theater of cross vetoes was overcome with the intervention of the heads of state. And with a somewhat questionable formula: the three parties of the "Ursula" majority will draw up a kind of political document that will serve as proof that this kind of majority is good, while the other majorities are bad. This is somewhat ridiculous, since the parliamentary systems of advanced democracies have often managed to govern with so-called variable-geometry majorities. In fact, the EPP, which understood this very well, decided which majority to favor depending on the issue being voted on. So, for example, on European issues of common defense, it would play along with the so-called pro-European parties, cleverly trying to include the ECR. The latter is a pro-Ukrainian, Atlanticist and pro-Western party with a confederal vision of Europe. A Europe that, according to the ECR, should be more concerned with defense and less with ultra-regulation of everything, including the length of courgettes, with catastrophic effects on people's lives. Who tend to reject the imposition of such regulations with the cry: "Europe demands it of us". And who therefore end up with a negative image of Europe instead of a positive one, as it should be. To this end, the EPP had cleverly divided the right into a pro-Western and constructive right (ECR) and a pro-Putin and defeatist right (Patriots and ESN). An operation carried out in the interest of the survival of Europe itself. Which the idiocy of the socialists and liberals would not accept, because they are all still intimidated by the electoral defeats they suffered in Europe. A fundamental game, that of the variable geometry majorities, because besides being perfectly legitimate from every point of view. It is compatible with a proportional electoral system such as that used to elect the European Parliament. And it serves to distinguish on the merits. So that if you are talking about serious things, for example, common debt instruments, you can vote with all the "pro-EU" parties. If, on the other hand, it is a question of voting for green measures that will lead to the suicide of European industry and agriculture by sending thousands of jobs up in smoke, you can vote with those who defend work. Be it the "Ursula" majority or the "Venezuela" majority. And that is the EPP, the ECR, the Patriots and the ESN.