I don't agree that it clearly says that. Yes, Edward said that he renounced the throne for himself and his descendants, but that's a pretty standard renouncement and I think it's intended to mean that Edward's descendants couldn't claim the throne through their descent from Edward. We have seen other individuals who are descended from royals in a manner that does not grant them succession rights succeed because they're descended from other royals in a way that does grant them succession rights - William, for example, is descended from both Charles II and James II through illegitimate lines (and Catholics to boot), but that doesn't invalidate his claim through his grandmother.
There are many British royals who have succession rights through many lines. The idea that being descended in the wrong way via one line will exclude you from having a claim in every other line is absurd.
(2)His Majesty, His issue, if any, and the descendants of that issue, shall not after His Majesty's abdication have any right, title or interest in or to the succession to the Throne...
Ish, IT DOES clrearly says that.
It's law and its stiupulations are very clear, so there's no place for any intentions here. Having an another claim to the throne, I mean from an another line of descent than Edward VIII's does not replace or undo what the Abdication Act, let's say it again - clearly says. It just can't. Law is law, an an act of Parliament is the highest law. Thus, there would be needed an amendement of the said Act or an entire new act that replaces the Abdication Act or in any other way settles the question of succession of all Edward VIII's descendants (or any particular person or someone's all future descendants) who have another claims to the throne.
I don't say that being descended from Edward VIII and Electress Sophia of Hanover through an another line would disqualify any person from succession, but the Abdication Act of Edward VIII does that. That person would still have his or her claims, but it would be unlawful because the said Act prohibits them.
What matters here for a possible Prince George descended from Edward VIII from his mother's line, legally, is simply being a descendant of the King, thus a subject to the provisions of the Abdication Act.
Of course, the royals' descent from illegitimate or morganatic issue of monarchs does not give them rights to the throne (in some cases, morganatic children could have legal claims to the throne), but they derive their claims from another, legal and dynastic lines. There is no law that bars someone's other claims just because he or she comes also from an unlawful line at the same time. But there is a law that bars those who are (would be) descended from Edward VIII, with no exceptions or conditions like being descended also from an another royal, from the succession. Read the act, it is quite evident.