It was difficult to miss the irony in Berlin on Saturday. French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder met to discuss the future of the European Union and to urge that the EU constitution ratification process to continue. Furthermore, they pledged to take Europeans' concerns about the 25-nation club more seriously than ever before. And yet, one has to ask, what exactly do these two have to offer? After all, Chirac is disgraced after France resoundingly rejected the European constitution eight days ago, and Schroeder's government is likely on its last legs after he called for federal elections to be moved up by a year to this autumn. But then, they aren't the only ones casting about for a Euro-cure. German commentators spend Monday doing the same.

The Financial Times Deutschland notes that, during his weekend meeting with Chirac, Schroeder made his attempt to make the upcoming EU summit, to be held in 10 days, a bit less contentious. Originally, the EU budget for 2007 to 2014 was to be the subject of the meeting and, given the competing views of exactly what that budget should look like, Schroeder mentioned that Germany would be willing to compromise -- a compromise that may cost Germany up to €10 billion. While the paper welcomes Schroeder's leadership in attempting to avoid a budget crisis, it also questions his call for continuing the EU constitution's ratification process. "A demonstration of decision-making ability is more important than continuing the ratification process of a document which, in its current form, has no chance of being adopted." It is time to take a breather. "The European Commission, its bureaucracy and the heads of the member governments have to realize that the old EU strategy of concurrent enlargement and deepening of the alliance can destroy it if the process isn't slowed down." It is time, in other words, to decide what kind of Europe Europeans really want.

Germany's other financial daily, Handelsblatt, also addresses a possible solution -- that of making Europe more of a confederacy of individual nation-states rather than a single political entity -- and presents one pro and one contra commentary. On the pro-side, the editorial makes the case that it's time to bury the constitution and to identify those states which are able to advance the success of Europe. "Such a 'Coalition of the Willing' would open the door to a new and more dynamic Europe." While the author warns that such a plan should not be understood as a plea for less integration, he writes, "De facto, the continent is a cumbersome colossus that hasn't found a solution for its weak growth. At the same time, though, there are members that have found the recipe, whether it's ... Ireland ..., Slovakia, Estonia or ... Great Britain. Here lies the answer to the current crisis: more differentiation and less unification would be good for the EU."

On the contra side, however, the Handelsblatt notes that the primary problems, which led to the rejection of the constitution by the French and Dutch, are not economic ones. As such, "varying or even competing federations of individual countries would lead to the end of the European Union. The true deficiencies in European integration until now -- a lack of transparency and democracy -- would only get worse." In other words, it is time to focus more on repairing the political framework within which European integration can move forward.

Despite Schroeder and Chirac's call for a continuing of the ratification process, the conservative Die Welt sees a "pause for reflection," as British Prime Minister Tony Blair called for, as unavoidable. After all, the paper notes, it's not just Britain that has put its referendum on ice. A number of other countries including Denmark, Portugal, Ireland and maybe even Poland are considering, the paper writes, delaying their votes on the constitution. Plus, a number of questions remain to be answered if the EU is going to get back on track in the future. "Why have national governments not explained to their citizens what enlargement really means for the EU? ... Why have they handed over more and more responsibilities to Brussels? Why are they pleading for adding new members without providing an analysis of the possible results from such an enlargement? And why do EU budget debates feel so much like a bazaar?" It is time, the paper argues, for the EU to redefine itself. "Instead of dealing with all sorts of rubbish, the EU has to zero in on the essentials: job creation, improving the quality of life and improving environmental protection. Only then will the citizens recognize the sense of European integration once again."