Yes, no. Wider, deeper. Larger, smaller. The debate over the EU sometimes has the tendency to sound like a bad porn movie. Today's European Union is not only at a crossroads. It is at about seven. The current nail-biting countdown to the EU referendum in France at the end of May, added to the blink-and-you-miss-it acceptance of the constitution in the German parliament on Thursday, has left commentators throughout Europe wondering where, if anywhere, the EU is heading.

Just when you thought things had got hairy enough, the left-leaning Die Tageszeitung decides to make things even more exciting by calling for a Europe-wide referendum for any future constitutional changes in a front-page commentary.

For those who feel exhausted by the very thought of such an arduous task, the paper does concede that there are a few obstacles to overcome first. Such as the small question of how such an enterprise would work. "Would 50 percent of all the votes cast be counted as a majority? Or would it be necessary to reach this quota in each member state? And what about results from countries where less than 30 percent of the population actually voted?"

In a rare fit of optimism, however, the paper concludes that such problems are by no means insurmountable. "To ensure that satisfactory answers are found in time for the next constitutional reform, we should start debating the matter now. All across Europe." Presuming, of course, someone has the energy for such an endeavor.

Next to this modest proposal, the paper -- never shy about appearing unpatriotic -- has subverted the forbidden first verse of the German national anthem from "Deutschland über alles" to "Europe über alles". It also writes "Yippie, we are in. We have the constitution ... we are Europe, yeah, yeah, yeah. Ole, ole, ole. Super-Europe, here we come ... we are the champions, Europe we love you." Whether this is supposed to be euphoria at passing the constitution or an ironic bit of sarcasm, is not quite clear. Presumably the paper is just trying to be funny.

In a more serious tone the center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung calls the German parliament's acceptance of the European constitution an act of bravery. It writes that although the constitution is far from perfect, it is at least a step in the right direction. "A constitution in the hand, is worth two in the bush," it sagely paraphrases.

"Europe needs a constitution which ... everyone can understand and which, not only recognizes manufacturers and consumers, but also recognizes citizens with rights and duties." The paper goes on to say that this is unfortunately not what this particular draft promises. Or, rather, not yet.

"Should the German parliament have rejected this constitution because of what it lacks, the mistakes it makes and the deficits it has?" No, concludes the commentator. The fact that the German parliament has accepted this constitution is a sign of faith and hope in what is possible in the future.

The conservative Die Welt on the other hand is markedly less optimistic. The European Union has developed from what was supposed to be "a necessary alliance of states to encourage economic liberalization, into a gigantic structure that is vehemently pushing its way into political integration."

The paper also questions the fact that although the EU aims to become a more agile player on the world stage, it is continues tp grow in size. "No one knows what direction the Union is drifting in. Does Turkey belong? Should Russia join? Should Europe intervene as a stabilizing force in North Africa? The vagueness of the EU's intentions is unsettling."

A stronger European Union is detrimental to the power of individual member states, writes the commentator. "The transfer of national sovereign rights to Brussels is harmful both to democracy and to member states' individual responsibility."

The paper goes on to say that it is surprising how easily it is accepted by the general public that, in a globalized world, problems can only be solved on an EU level, rather than by the nation states themselves. Until now, it says, the EU has proven itself incapable of solving any of the issues which plague modern society. "National debt, economic growth, overregulation, unemployment and unnecessary levels of bureaucracy remain domestic issues."

The commentator concludes that whether or not Brussels is ever in the position to solve Europe's political problems, the fact remains that there is still nothing to match the sovereign nation state when it comes to democratic accountability.

The weekly newspaper Die Zeit, however, points out that the constitution succeeds in rectifying the much vilified democratic deficit for which the EU has long been criticized. Unlike other papers, rather than indulging in diatribes against the constitution or the EU, it takes the opportunity to summarize, in a front-page leader, what the new document actually contains.

"The constitution is the best thing that the community has produced since the Treaty of Rome," the paper writes, saying that it strengthens the rights of both member nations and EU citizens, in addition to increasing the Union's efficiency when dealing with the rest of the world.

The controversy sparked by the constitution is also explained by the writer. "For many critics this document goes too far, because it supposedly creates a "super state" and takes power out of the hands of the nation and the citizen. But for others it doesn't go far enough. Both in areas of social policy or in making the Union more democratic. Some demand more Europe. Others fear exactly that and call for less Europe. Not even the perfect agreement would satisfy both parties."