Is the EU’s rule of law crisis a byproduct of dissensus and disunion?

Is the EU’s rule of law crisis [ROLC] indicative of a deepening ‘disunion’ sparked by the rise of illiberal ideas? I sound a skeptical note, suggesting that disunion arguments exaggerate dissensus, overstate the role of ideology, and do not capture key events and political interactions shaping the crisis. Specifically, disunion arguments cannot explain the emergence of a pro-ROL consensus in the European Parliament, neglect member states repeatedly articulating and committing themselves to fundamental liberal values, understate the ideological opportunism and about-faces of self-styled ‘illiberals,’ and overstate dubious evidence of public support for illiberal ideas and backlash to EU enforcement. The evidence is more consistent with new intergovernmentalist claims that member governments across the ideological spectrum are willing to sacrifice the ROL to safeguard consensus in the European Council, and that the Commission retreats from its role as ‘guardian of the Treaties’ absent intergovernmental support.