Margrethe Vestager, Europe’s competition commissioner from Denmark, was selected as No. 2 on the POLITICO 28 list of people who are shaking, stirring and shaping the Continent.

POLITICO sat down with her recently to discuss her antitrust philosophy, lifestyle and artistic tastes. An edited transcript of the conversation follows below.

Question: Do you see yourself more as a judge, a prosecutor or a politician?

Vestager: I see myself as a politician in the broader sense of the word, because I see the work we do here as putting real day-to-day value into the values and founding principles of our treaty. We work for the people, and I see the work we do as defending very basic principles of our treaty.

You want to regulate Internet platforms. Are you opening Pandora’s box?

First of all, I am still in learning mode when it comes to platforms, because I have difficulties in finding the common denominator of different services, which share the word platform but except for that work very differently with different parts of the economy, with different structures, with different business models.

You said competition law goes back to Adam and Eve: fear, greed and the most basic impulses.

But that is my impression about human beings. Since neither CEOs, nor engineers nor anyone else working in a company are any different from the rest of us, well probably they react as the rest of us. Sometimes of course you need to dig through layers and layers of law and lawyers and their reasoning, but what I have found in my experience is that basically it boils down to very human feelings and aspirations and ways of thinking.

What are next year’s big targets?

One thing is for sure and that is we will continue, both when it comes to the bigger cases, the spectacular ones of Google and Gazprom, but also continue when it comes to taxation. We have 300 different tax rulings on our table that we are analyzing. We still have a couple of pending investigations. At the same time, of course, we will pay attention to things that may not seem as spectacular but may have also direct influence on European citizens and European consumers. Because basically, and I think about this almost every day, the reason why we are useful is that we enable European citizens to have a fair chance of living their life in full. By showing that there is such a thing as fairness and equal treatment, and if you have a good idea then you should have access to the market as well. It shouldn’t be closed by the big [companies], the established ones or the ones with deep pockets.

So you want to protect Google’s competitors?

No, never. We would do wrong if we thought about protecting other companies. Basically, what it trickles down to is to protect competition for the benefits of citizens. Because an open market with a level playing field gives every company the opportunity to offer its products at affordable prices, quality and innovation.

How will your cases break open and foster innovation?

It is important the future is open to innovation. I think it is quite obvious that in a European way of thinking it is a good thing that you can grow. It is not a bad thing, and we should congratulate businesses that grow. But I also think the congratulations should stop if we think a position is being misused.

Can competition enforcers reshape the online markets?

Yes. I am trying to keep in mind that, even though I have been given a hammer, not everything is a nail. There are a lot of limitations to competition law: There are issues where you would want to regulate. You saw the regulation on [credit card] fees, where we could only get so far by enforcing competition law. If you look at the tax cases, you see the same relationship.

“I am trying to keep in mind that, even though I have been given a hammer, not everything is a nail.”

What was the biggest shock of going from a minister in Denmark to competition commissioner?

I still put in as many hours, but it is very different. Here I have the privilege of going into cases: Some would say I know too many details, some might say I know too few, but [it allows me to] spend more time to have a much deeper understanding. Being minister of economics and the interior and leader of my party I had responsibility all over the board, whether kindergartens or financial regulation or environmental affairs.

How many hours a day do you work?

I never found it motivating to count because then you would like to work less. One of the things that I saw as a child was that my parents never counted their working hours because they did not keep working hours. [As Lutheran pastors] they did not have office hours, the door was always open.

What was their lifestyle like?

It was very flexible during the week when there were still some days to go before the Sunday sermon to do some things that some people might consider completely private, as tending their garden or whatever. So they didn’t consider a work-life balance, they just integrated the two.

Of course I don’t have the privilege of living where I work, which was their privilege in the vicarage. So of course I spend a lot of hours here, from very early morning to the early afternoon, and then I have a lot of reading to do back home. But still trying to make things come together because if you don’t have a life, how can you be responsible for part of the framework of other peoples’ lives?

You have a life — you watch and re-watch James Bond films, you jog, you are a big art fan. Do you have a favorite gallery?

No, because you find the most surprising things in the most surprising places. I very much enjoyed the exhibition that they have at [Brussels’] Bozar “2050”: It is an amazing thing. It is quite rare that an exposition is curated with a political mindset. [I find it interesting to read] Jacques Attali and his five ways of the future, and then find pieces of art that would illustrate it, or comment on it, or allow you to understand his art from a completely different dimension.

The Commission says every year that Europe taxes people too much. Then in October you hit Fiat and Starbucks for millions in back taxes for tax breaks they got from individual countries. And you’re also looking at deals that companies such as Apple and Amazon have gotten. In effect aren’t you pushing taxes up and making Europe less competitive?

This will not reduce tax competition by the front door. What we are dealing with is what goes on via the back door. And if member states take this on board, then maybe you don’t have to invent new taxes, or raise taxes.

This is not a question of higher or lower taxes: It is a question of every company contributing, not only those thousands and thousands of businesses who do contribute today and have to sit and suspect their competitors have had an advantage.

Tax rulings, antitrust probes, the safe harbor ruling. Is Europe more of a regulator than innovator?

No. Europe, with all its troubles and all the crises, is a wonderful place to do business. There are more than 500 million potential customers. It is safe and well-regulated. In most countries you will find you can work with authorities directly. It is not corrupt. You can do it for absolutely right reasons and good reasons. If your suggestion was [true], you wouldn’t see innovation, new technology, new business models, new ways of working together emerging on the Continent.

You do?

Yes, of course. In a number of member states you have lots and lots of startups. One of the reasons why we are working on the capital markets union is to make sure those startups have access to capital for them to grow. You have young people with lots of ideas of how to make their mark on earth. I think we way too easily paint a very grim picture.

I don’t think you should take the grim picture away because obviously it is there. [But] you should also focus on the fact we have very strong institutions. Since the Lisbon Treaty we have a very strong European Parliament. We have the Commission, we have the Council, we have our Court.

Taking just one of them, the Commission is willing to make priorities and not to try to do everything. Among those priorities is to implement legislation instead of trying to think of doing something new. Which, I think, is very good news for anyone who felt that for years there has been an avalanche or slow tsunami of rules and directives and circulaires and whatever on their desk.