How to deal with deep disagreement on the Rule of Law in the European Parliament?

In recent years there has been a growing difference of opinion in the European Parliament on how member states should deal with the Rule of Law. Democratic backsliding is regularly the subject of debate, and there seems to be a so-called "deep disagreement" between countries like Hungary and Poland on the one hand, and most other member states on the other hand. Regarding this issue, the parties involved do not seem to have shared (European) values and beliefs, what makes it difficult or even impossible to reach a decision through an argumentative exchange. And when common ground is lacking, the use of rhetorical means is at hand. As Fogelin states (2005, p.9): "At the end of reasons comes persuasion." Because Europe faces important challenges in the coming years, it is important that parliamentary debates lead to supported decisions that can be effectively implemented in the member states. So the question is: in what ways can the argumentative quality of debates in the European Parliament on the Rule of Law be improved? We analysed a sample of debates on the Rule of Law, with the focus on the deep disagreement at stake, as well as on the argumentative and rhetorical persuasion strategies that were applied (Van Eemeren, 2018; Garssen, 2016; Heidlebaugh, 2008). Furthermore, the use of strategies in this case of deep disagreement is evaluated according to two models of democracy: the ideal model of deliberative democracy, which assumes a rational exchange of arguments (Habermas, 1990; Gutmann & Thompson, 1998), and the model of agonistic democracy (Mouffe, 1999; Laclau & Mouffe, 2014), which provides space in the political arena for various contributions and considers a more rhetorical approach acceptable. Finally, we draw conclusions about improving the quality of discussions in the European Parliament on the Rule of Law.