No, it's not. Just as the risks of loss of privacy are much higher than generally perceived, the risks of terrorism are much lower than generally perceived. Terrorism is perceived as a problem, but it really isn't, in most parts of Europe. Car crashes are a real world problem. Terrorism isn't.
(Now, I am obviously not saying that governments should simply blindly ignore terrorism risks--but overall, it really isn't a big problem, and there almost certainly are risks where most of the money would be better spent trying to reduce fatalities.)
Not accepting this misleading framing is an important step in addressing the wishes of the population for totalitarianism.
Perhaps that's because the security services are doing such a fantastic job. To make sure it's not a problem in all of Europe and make sure no more children die, they can't fight the war with hands behind their backs.
This is not what I believe, but it is how the argument gets phrased. How do you beat it? Not by extolling the virtues of end-to-end encryption and the importance of your civil liberties, that's for sure.
I think that is the stage in the debate that convinces most normal people. Losing privacy of their gmail account to some faceless government entity is a theoretical problem that has no real impact on their lives. Terrorism on the other hand is a real world problem with easy to see consequences. I think most pragmatic non-techy people are willing to make that trade. If you want to change their mind, focus on showing how loss of privacy has real world effects.