Ethelred, you are a mine of information. Alas, so many people are now openly sidelining Bp. Williamson in conformity with leadership policy. He is the trade-off in getting the world to believe the Society is no longer a reactionary force.
Thank you Wessex for your words and your wise judgement on the SSPX' sad dealing with Bishop Williamson. Clearly, Menzingen can't wait to get rid of the hated Bishop Williamson who's "just" a truth-teller. However, the SSPX leaders will have to give account for their years of injustice against Bishop Williamson and the truth, and they shouldn't forget: Menzingen proposes, God disposes!
(We too should not forget this. It may look like the Pfluger-Krah-Fellay fraction is victorious on most fronts, but still God has the last word. Let's also remember that Bishop Williamson is with God.)
Since Bishop Fellay has said he will consult the SSPX leaders, that would normally mean a General Chapter. So, in case he wants to sign Newrome's offer (I think he would like to), he would have to bring the General Chapter around to his point of view.
Then what part will the three other bishops have in this? In theory no special part, but in practice the three other bishops would carry special weight with their priestly colleagues. And if all three bishops were against the agreement with Newrome, Bishop Fellay would have a hard time in swinging the General Council behind it. As an experienced diplomat and politician with good knowledge in double-thinking, he would rather find a way of making it appear that the three bishops' opinion had been his own opinion all along...
So what are the other three bishops going to do with their special role in practice?
1. I'm sure from Bishop Williamson's statements and EC sermons, that he would never accept an agreement with the modernist Newrome.
2. If we look at Bishop Galarreta's recent Ecône sermon, we see that he several times attacked the Newpope B16 in a sharp way, a little bit like Archbishop Lefebvre did. The Bishop underlined it by letting his "ammunition" being served on a silver tablet, i.e. the quotes from Ratzinger which the bishop then read and attacked. Personally I don't think he would agree with a Newrome agreement.
3. Bishop Tissier is known to be theologically very anti Newrome and anti Newpope B16. However, from my observation (his script on B16's thinking, his treatment of Fr Merano, etc) I think that courage is a weak point. Still, considering the importance of the Newrome's offer, I think that with a higher probability the bishop would join the first-mentioned two bishops.
Let's wait and see.