José Manuel Barroso has been cleared of wrongdoing by an ad hoc EU ethics committee cobbled together by his successor Jean Claude Juncker to show strength as the EU reeled following the blow of Britain's vote to leave the EU. But, apparently, that will not suffice.

EU Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly has said she will weigh the judgment and decide whether or not to pursue the issue further, perhaps by public inquiry. Her concern is based largely on the types of evidence assessed, or not, by the committee in reaching its decision.

And the commission itself has yet to respond.

Of course, Barroso has not entirely escaped censure, with the committee suggesting he ought to have known better and that accepting the Goldman job was a lapse of judgment.

But we are surely not saying that it is impossible for any senior retiring European figure to take a role with Goldman Sachs or any other company after a suitable “cooling off” period. Or are we?

European identity crisis

Possibly the most enlightening aspect of the ethics committee’s report was that EU rules are “vague” on what ethical standards should apply after the 18-month cooling off period on leaving office.

Like so much about the EU, this is an issue that has been fudged.

That and an inability to clearly explain what it does and why to its citizens is at the heart of the crisis of identity in Europe.

The fiasco of the vote on the trade deal with Canada is a further example of this growing problem for Brussels, and for its member states. The first such accord the EU with a G7 country, it was to be a triumph; it may yet prove a nadir.

Barroso was never the problem, even if his actions speak to a wider lack of awareness within EU bureaucracy.

For his part, Mr Barroso has described the ethics investigation of him as as “discriminatory” and “inconsistent with decisions taken in respect of other former members of the commission”.

It’s hard to disagree.