The Eurozone deal laid bare the fact that national sovereignty in Europe is a thing of the past.

But if that was that price paid for a stronger Europe, a safe currency union and a stronger economy, maybe we could have a reasonable argument about the costs and benefits. But the countries on the periphery, like Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece, who gave up the ability for their governments to make decisions in the interests of the people they represent, in favor of unelected bureaucrats led by the nose of the markets, don’t even get the exchange of greater economic opportunity.

Euro nations have been hoping they could agree on an adequate framework for shoring up their banks, and for some, their own credit, in the event an expected Greek default occurs. But claims of an agreement are still premature, and so markets are reacting to the continued uncertainty.

Reuters reported this afternoon that negotiators had reached a deal on the Basel III reforms for international banking, and that on the key question of capital requirements, the range would fall in between 7% and 9%. The press release from the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision puts that squarely on the low end.

Regulators have competing goals, or at least goals that distract from one another. They want to ensure price transparency for every trade, and exchanges or clearinghouses as the mechanism. But they also should want to increase the swap participants, so that the market doesn’t get concentrated, adding to risk.

This could end well, or with literally no meaningful changes at all. Banks are placing a lot of money to ensure the latter.

It’s very important to keep on top of the implementation of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, because Congress basically outsourced the writing of the bill to the regulators. There are 67 studies and 200 rules that regulators will have to conduct, enact and implement. And so it’s worth looking into their progress, which has already begun.

enate candidate Alexi Giannoulias (D-IL) has come out expressing support of a measure mandating big bank break-up, albeit with an emphasis elsewhere.

An odyssey that started back in December in the House could finally culminate today, with the finishing touches put on the Wall Street reform bill as the conference committee winds up its work. With so many consequential issues still yet to be fully decided, it’s hard to know how to judge that finished product.

I’ve been telling you about the critical concessions in the last days of the FinReg conference committee. Let’s step back a second. This bill won’t end too big to fail. It won’t protect the country to enough of a degree in the event of the next crisis. But it could do some positive things that would head in that direction. It could balance the relationship between the country and the oligopoly of giant, unaccountable banks. It could give consumers a fighting chance to protect themselves from getting screwed repeatedly. And as a financial reform bill, it’s a pretty solid anti-predatory lending bill. Heck, I’d cleave those pieces off, support it as a standalone, and hail a good progressive victory.

In a statement, Lincoln’s spokeswoman said she wanted to make sure “no Arkansas bank—no matter its owner—is punished”. Why does raising capital requirements constitute punishment? Aren’t Arkansas families punished when leverage goes up and risk enters the system and banks fail, rippling through the economy and causing the kind of deep recession we saw in the 2008 period? Lincoln’s claim that she just wants to protect local banks that didn’t destroy the economy – ridiculous on its face, because the market for riskier securities could easily flow down to banks with looser regulatory requirements – doesn’t match her actions.

Yesterday was a singularly unimpressive day at the Wall Street reform conference committee, with concessions and industry giveaways galore.