I haven't had the time to look at this (I'm presently very busy, I sadly don't have the time to keep a close eye on the E.U.'s slide into repression).

Still, "reasonable" often means "whatever the enforcers want". Over the past twenty years, it has been heavily abused.

A couple years ago in Australia, under the previous government, right-wing conspiracy theorists abused "reasonable" language to censor art, video games, and books. "reasonable" sounds useful on paper, but it's useless in practice for protecting anyone's rights.

I don't think it's a good idea to leave such a door open for puritans, bigots, or other bad actors to abuse it.

Barring outright abuse, it still encourages a service to take ineffective and disproportionate measures. Why wouldn't it? If they get it wrong, they'll get penalized. If they go too far, they won't. It's simpler to just go much further.

You also have to assume that a politician will want to put on an appearance that they are doing something. It's not necessarily going to be what is effective or proportionate. Even chasing tiny things (in the grand scheme of criminality), if it might get them a "win".