In addition to the assumption of an age noted to 62

It is the last straight line. Tuesday or Wednesday, the Government will unveil its pension reform bill, and, as attested by numerous sources, the suspense on the extent of recovery of legal age (60 years old now) is not feigned. Nicolas Sarkozy should decide Monday after weighed and weighed the advantages and disadvantages. 62 years, 63, 62 years and a half, "firm" age 62 and 63 years conditional: the talk.

This difference in a year is not a minor. Behind this, there is also the choice to stop the cursor of the reform to 2020 (option) 62 years or display an objective balance of pension until 2025 or 2030 (option) 63 years, which would imply further efforts: the need for funding at this time reached 70 billion euros, against 45 billion in 2020.

Christine Lagarde, François Fillon, François Baroin grow for up to 63 years. The pressure of the French debt markets serves their cause, and Bercy does not deprive to use it. The concern is real, including in the Elysee Palace, on the rate with the Germany, and the age differential legal is the most watched test in Europe for pension reform: stop at 62 might be misperceived.

Risk of social tension

The Prime Minister, who continues in his speech to highlight the risks posed by the debts of the States on their sovereignty, would also be more distant than the Act of 2003 (which bears his name) the horizon of the reform: she had for objective balance in 2020. Politically, advocates of 63 years believe that, even put an end to the age 60 retirement all go frankly, "" the social cost of the reform is in any way to assume.

But the memory of 1995 haunting the Elysee Palace, and in particular the social Counsellor, Raymond Soubie. No question, for Nicolas Sarkozy, to know the same fate as Alain Juppé and Jacques Chirac, pushing too far the advantage on unions after mobilization last month halftone. The social tension in the re-entry risk is judged to be serious. The Elysee is therefore attempted to limit the horizon of the reform to 2020. What the age used the Executive intends to show to its European partners (and investors) that the new framework will be as stringent as elsewhere, the France playing also on a high period of assessment, an almost unique case in Europe. "It would be better to stop at 62 years", argues Pierre Méhaignerie (UMP), President of the commission for Social Affairs in the National Assembly.

Send clear signals

Other parliamentarians of the majority however grow to 63 years. The President of the UMP in the National Assembly group, Jean-François Copé, the rapporteur of the social security budget, Yves Bur, or even the future rapporteur of the Pensions Act, Denis Jacquat, are on a "hard-line". Jean-François Copé says that we should send clear signals to the Germany on public finances. It is he who takes the more radical position: yesterday, in the show "has you try", it is clearly for the postponement of the age legal to 63 years, by 2020, is a little more than a quarter extra per year. "It's below that are from other European countries", he argued. After 2020, it provides an automatic mechanism to raise the legal age on life expectancy.

In these circumstances, the prospect of a decision to Midway is not excluded. In addition to the assumption of an age noted to 62.5 years in 2020, some argue for 62 years are engraved in the marble and the passage to 63 years is more progressive, even conditioned to an "appointment" retreats, before 2020. With the possibility to link up with the evolution of life expectancy, as is the case for the duration of contributions. For the proponents of a rigorous reform, the legal age is not the one key element: it is also to limit the maximum concessions on the arduous nature (individual approach) or expensive long careers to the CFDT. '' It is in any event in the boat", loose a counsellor.

Basic retirement: what are your rights Chat today at 11 a.m. on lesechos.fr/chatlesechos.fr/chat