More precisely, among the most important AM tabled by the Greens, we lost :
– AM 2, stating that the process of liberalisation should not undermine the overriding objective of sustainable development (in this respect, it is another proof that most political groups, including most of the PSE and with the exception of the GUE, considers that the liberalisation process is basically an end in itself) ;
– AM 5, stating that trade measures should be taken to prevent environmental dumping, from countries which are exempt from CO2 emissions target. In this respect, it needs to be underlined, that although the PSE voted in favour of such AM in ECON (tabled by Benoit Hamon), the majority of their members voted against in plenary in RCV !!
– AM 6, stating that the EU has a strong responsibility in tackling the most urgent problems resulting from economic globalisation, namely the growing social imbalances ant the continuing destruction of the environmental commons. Interestingly enough, most of the PSE voted against such AM, in spite of the RCV !! In order words, their willingness not to change the weak compromise of the joint resolution is superior to the ideas they usually defend or agree with !!
– AM 7, stating that the Commission shall take fully into account of the external social and environmental costs resulting of further liberalisation in its review of the Integrated Policy Guidelines for achieving the Lisbon Strategy. Here again, the attitude of the PSE is particularly interesting, since most of them abstained.

If we look now on the bright side, the Greens have at least one solace :
– The resolution contains some interesting proposals on the social dimension of the Lisbon Strategy (such as the need to combat social dumping, to require from third countries ratification and enforcement of core ILO standards, to improve the integration and visibility of the social dimension in the next cycle of the Lisbon Strategy, etc.)
– AM 8, claiming that the fight against climate change shall constitute the backbone of the EU of the review of the "three years Lisbon cycle" was adopted. But in view of the fact that this resolution shows once more that there is no political willingness to develop a consistent trade (or transport) policy which responds to this objective, this "victory" must mainly be understood as an agreement to increase energy efficiency or to develop green technology (although being very important, it will not be enough to tackle with climate change !).