Bishop John Broadhurst, the Chairman of "Forward in Faith" has issued a statement following the recent Synod decisions in York. You can read it on the Sevenoaks blog.
I have long suspected (and please correct me if I am wrong) that FIF, as a group, is not really interested in union with Rome. This statement tends to bear that out. There is still a desire to see a resurgence of the "orthodox" Catholic wing of Anglicanism. It seems to me that this is completely unrealistic. The main problem - as I have already said, and as recognised by many Anglo-Catholics - is that having women bishops leads to schism. Ultimately any "provisions" that might be made in the future are useless, because the Church of England is now fractured, and the only way it can be healed is if there is a change of direction to the extent of rejecting the ordination of women.
The so-called "reception" phase - which had no real life except in the minds of some Anglo-Catholics - during which there would supposedly be some waiting and investigation to see how women's ordination was accepted, or not, by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches was obviously not taken seriously by those who ordained women and by women who were ordained. After all, as far as they are concerned, you are either ordained or you are not, and if the Catholic Church says, "you are not", what difference does that make since the RC Church does not accept Anglican orders anyway? (I am guessing as to their thoughts, and apologise if I am misjudging anyone).
Those who are truly of a Catholic mind-set will know that you cannot have a "Church" where there are two sets of bishops or where there are priests who do not accept each others' orders. To envisage a "communion" where there is no real, shared, Communion and where the theology of orders is so different in each group is to enter a world of illogical fancy. Those who choose to remain in FIF on the basis of seeking another settlement or provision are trying to run against a gale-force wind; they will not get anywhere.