[EntrePrescott]

Though it's not the whole government who's against but really the two smaller parties in the coalition: the FDP (liberal party, 11.5%) foremost, and to some extent currently also the green party (14.8%)…

… whereas the largest party in the government coalition, the SPD (25.7%) of chancelor Scholz is not only largely in favor of such client-side scanning (of course there are also exceptions within the party), but also the party that holds the relevant ministry (interior) and thus the participation in the EU-side negociations.

The current coalition contract kinda forces the SPD to oppose such client side scanning at the EU level - and we'll see to what extent they keep their word or try to play foul against the contract, but there is no doubt imho that if the next government was again a "grand coalition" of SPD and CDU without the liberals to block such stuff, then such client side scanning would be waved through by the same SPD that currently is contractually bound to oppose it.

The danger of such attacks against our liberties is still very much there, and it takes a constant watchful fight for our liberties to prevent the authoriarian statists from getting through with such stuff. They never stop trying to push through ever more of their liberticide ideas.

[unity1001]

> The current coalition contract kinda forces the SPD to oppose such client side scanning at the EU level - and we'll see to what extent they keep their word or try to play foul against the contract

You cant 'play foul' against coalition protocols. The moment you do, the government falls.

[EntrePrescott]

You can (if you're the bigger coalition partner with a big power imbalance), and in fact it's not that rare at all and it's exactly what the CDU did quite blatantly last time they were in coalition with the FDP at the federal level under Merkel. Of course, the smaller coalition party could theoretically react to such an infringement against the coalition contract by ending the coalition…

… but that would usually hurt them enormously more than their infringing bigger coalition partner, especially if the infringement of their partner against the coalition contract is about something that the majority of voters doesn't care enough about, if it's something that the bigger coalition partner can publicly spin as TINA(*)-necessary due to changed conditions or anything they can sell as a "crisis" or if the polls are currently less favorable for the smaller party than at the last elections.

Ending a coalition is something that would typically come at an extremely high price for the smaller party who'd do it. Which is why it happens much more rarely than unilateral infringements against coalition contracts by the bigger coalition partner.

(*): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative