Here is an agreement regulating trade in bananas. It contains tariffs, quotas, tonnage. Now let's look at the EU-Korea "trade agreement". I does not look like a trade agreement. It looks more like a (harmonising) EU-directive. No, it looks exactly like a directive. The language is identical! Where it says "Each Party" in the agreement, the corresponding EU-directive article says "Member states". It has been said this agreement is a template for Acta, that Acta will look very similar (and other agreements too).
Acta is not a trade agreement. Trade agreements concern bananas or trucks or shoes. Acta contains criminal sanctions already considered in ongoing legislative processes. Not even TRIPs is a trade agreement. The acronym reads Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. TRIPs is integreated with the UN system at WIPO, but Acta is (like the final Copenhagen Accord) made up by a self selected few in a self proclaimed closed process.
The Swedish Minister for Trade responsible for Acta says there is "hopefully a conclusion of the negotiations in 2010". At the same time the Minister for Communications demands transparency from other Acta parties.
I say that if Acta is not opened up for parliamentary scrutiny before the Council reaches a political agreement, the Swedish parliament is effectively bypassed and its members cannot call themselves legislators any more.