This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Much work has clearly gone into this article, but I wonder whether it's redundant to Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949. Does anyone else have an opinion on merging the two? Alkari(?), 3 December 2011, 02:35 UTC
Some reorganisation is probably desirable, but I think that there is probably enough material to justify an article for both of these Acts. James500 (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
This Act must be construed as one with the Parliament Act 1949. The two Acts may be cited together as the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949.
I'm familiar with the formal "must". Every RFC begins by defining "must" and "shall". Since I don't think the lead serves best to help civics students cram for their midterms, I suggest instead something along the following lines:
As legally ordained by (British?) statutory interpretation, British judiciary must construe this Act as one with the Parliament Act 1949.
As badly worded as that probably is, at least it addresses who (precisely) is governed by what (precisely), without invoking rolling thunder from on high in summoning up a baritone passive voice. — MaxEnt 21:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)