retirement age or discrimination? Nature speaks of "sticking" around, but in europe we have new laws

In January 2011, the UK government announced its intention to stop
compulsory retirement for people aged 65, despite criticism of the move
by employers’ groups. Campaigners against age discrimination and unions
welcomed the change. However, official guidance makes it clear that
employers will be able to dimiss staff no longer capable of carrying out
their work. Official figures show more than two thirds of British
employers have already eliminated fixed retirement ages.

 http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2011/02/articles/uk1102039i.htm

In the mean time, Nature publishes alarming projections that no retirement, means an entire generation is cut out of the university system.  Which is the best line? 

In europe, we generally have retirement between 65 and 70 years, but things are changing probably.  How to solve this?  With a group of Top Italian Scientists in Italy, we are suggesting to do this based on merit.  see here .

Attached the Nature paper.   Nature 483, 233-235 (7 March 2012) | doi:10.1038/nj7388-233a; Retirement: Sticking around

Graeme
Hugo, a demographer at the University of Adelaide, Australia, doesn't
mince his words. He says Australia has inadvertently created a 'lost
generation' of academics: those under 40 years old.

 I'd like to know some opinions in imechanica from all over the world.