Poland’s President Andrzej Duda has just vetoed two of three new laws from the country’s right-wing government which included provisions to allow it to replace top judges with its own nominees.

The changes, which were approved by parliament, have led to days of protests and also dire warnings from the European Commission in Brussels to the effect that member states are required to have a clear separation between government and the judiciary.

In the long run, it is the intervention of Brussels that is likely to be most controversial aspect of this affair. There is a strong argument that the Polish courts are inefficient and at times corrupt. The influence of the old communist regime is still apparent throughout the court system.

The judiciary, whose members enjoy a degree of immunity stand, accused of nepotism and handing down perverse judgments, which for whatever reason are later upheld by appeal courts. Some lawyers who work in the civil courts complain of clear bias not only in final judgments but in the actual proceedings themselves where on occasions documentary evidence or testimony from witnesses essential to make their case is ruled inadmissible on the flimsiest of grounds.

Then there is the sheer inefficiency, whether deliberate or due to incompetence, of the courts system which has so discredited it. Therefore the Polish premier, Beata Szydlo leader of the center-right Law and Justice party has, perhaps conscious that she is living up to her party’s name, instituted these changes.

The question is whether the European Commission is wise to leap in with its threat to take action if the Polish government seeks to reform the judiciary. It is perhaps significant that the Commission is acting off its own bat. There has been no public consultation with member states through the EU Council of Ministers. Had there been, Hungary, itself in trouble with the Commission over its arguably far more controversial changes, would have voiced its support for Poland. As it is, Hungarian premier Viktor Orban has vowed to protect Poland from the “EU inquisition”. The Czech Republic and the UK, which still has a say in these matters until the terms of its departure from the EU are agreed, are thought to be sympathetic to the Polish government.

The EU Commission’s ultimate power rests in the imposition of sanctions. Those powers were first demonstrated in 2000 after Austrians elected the extreme right-wing government of Jorg Haidar. Overlooking the inconvenient fact that Haidar, however insalubrious a politician, was elected democratically, the EU cut ambassadorial links with Austria and refused to appoint any Austrians to EU posts. In the words of one EU observer at the time, what the sanctions actually amounted to was that the Austrians were no longer invited to parties in Brussels. The sanctions lasted for seven months before they were abandoned with Haidar still in office. The climb-down was humiliating for Brussels, demonstrating as it did, the limits to its much-vaunted power. It also served to stir up strong anti-EU feelings in Austria which have still not gone away.

At a time of Brexit, with the EU never looking so politically vulnerable, it must be wondered if saber rattling at Poland over its proposed judicial changes, is really the wisest course of action. Indeed, does Brussels actually have a saber to rattle?