Tamás Szemlér days of July 2006. Since then, some important changes regarding actual macroeconomic data 6 , and, as a consequence, the mid-term macroeconomic outlook in Hungary have taken place: the new version of the CP(mentioned in the text in the future tense) was prepared by the Government of the Republic of Hungary for 1 September 2006, and approved later on by the competent EU authorities. The new convergence programme outlines slower growth for the years 2007-2008, and it has consequences on consumption, investment, employment and unemployment figures, as well. As the amounts for co­financing are continuing to be assured according to the new figures, the potential conflict between the CP and the NSRF(mentioned in the paper) does not seem to threaten their use. On the other hand, the changes in the growth path have clear consequences for the realisation of the NRP. In line with the new version of the CP, the revised version of the NRP(approved by the Government of the Republic of Hungary on 11 October 2006) reflects the above changes, and the timetable of the plans to realise some important objectives(among them employment and unemployment rate targets) had to be modified. This new version of the NRP is expected to be evaluated by the European Commission in December 2006. While the concrete figures and timetables have gone through changes 7 , the main qualitative mid-term objectives of the three programmes remain unchanged. Of course, in the present situation(these lines are written at the end of November 2006) the CP has come even more to the foreground, while catching-up remains an important priority. As a consequence, it is(still) not Lisbon that matters first. 6. It has become clear that the actual budget deficit(general government net lending) figure will be considerably higher than the one foreseen in the 2005 version of the CP. Even with some corrective measures introduced in 2006, the deficit is now estimated to reach 10.1% of the GDP in 2006(the figure in the 2005 version of the CP(“actual value” in Table 4 of this paper) was 6.1%). 7. Including the timetable for the introduction of the euro: contrary to earlier scenarios setting target dates(the last one, mentioned as“actual” in the point discussing the relations between the three programmes, being 2010), the new version of the CP does not establish a new target date. On the basis of the figures of the new CP, however, the introduction of the euro in Hungary is now very likely to happen years later than the previous target dates. 130