"You voted for A a long time ago over there, who appointed B over here, who supported C up there, who finally backed D - the leader you never heard of - so it's

"You voted for A a long time ago over there, who appointed B over here, who supported C up there, who finally backed D - the leader you never heard of - so it's all very democratic!" Von der Leyen was not elected in any reasonable sense of the term. Voters went to the polls without knowing who she was, or her platform. They thought they were effectively voting for someone else. They were told that the 'deal' was that so-and-so would be the victor - but at the last minute after the election the people with power changed their minds and changed norms, and in a completely untransparent backroom deal - they chose a different leader. The President of EU Commission is a bad example of positive democracy and it's almost impossible to justify on those terms. It is what it is unfortunately, I'm not sure what the right answer is, but the current situation isn't near perfect. As for the statement - it's reasonable that there should be regulations - but the EU leadership shouldn't make such bold edicts: "You cannot do this, you must do as we say" - not a good way to start. They don't have this kind of legitimacy. They should position it as: "We don't believe corporations should be making these decisions without a framework provided by the people of the EU, so we'd like to work with them to provide some regulatory leadership"