Only I ask is not having to face another war.
The world had enough.

Argentina couldn’t take the island by force or by referendum so there doesn’t appear to be any issue to me.

it will never be “solved” because politicians will never admit to weakness or wrongdoing. Another war will not be fought as a sea assault is something that very few nations can successfully accomplish, and Argentina is definitely not one of them. Great Britain displayed utmost determination to defend the Falklands at a time of a historical low for the kingdom, both in terms of global reach and internal disrepair. Forty years later Great Britain has more than recovered in power and determination while Argentina has fallen into new historical lows. Lastly, the latest conflict in Ukraine proved to everyone that waging trivial invasions is extremely costly and there are no winners.

If the British had been able to take over the Rio de la Plata/River Plate in 1807 or so, Argentina (including Uruguay) would have become a British dominion and it would have become binational (English and Spanish) like Canada or white South Africa. In that situation, the Falklands (Or Malvinas Islands, I don’t want to be disrespectful) would have been settled by the British sometime around 1815, the capital would be called Bathurst and not Stanley due to a different British colonial secretary at the time (but at the same location), and both the capital and the islands as a whole would be up to 10 times as populated as in reality due to many more connections with the mainland. The Falklands would be an integral part of that (ex-)dominion as a territory just like Yukon, the Northwest Territories, or Nunavut in Canada, or the Northern Territory in Australia (due to smaller population than the mainland provinces). Thus, no Falklands War in 1982!

Tenho tendência a acreditar que devem ser os actuais residentes das ilhas quem decidem que talvez a Argentina as possa comprar, oferecendo uma quantia substancial de dinheiro para viver noutro local. Todo mundo tinha seu preço.

I honestly don’t understand why so much weight is given to the Argentinians’ claim. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that the island was tussled over between competing colonial powers over the two centuries preceding 1833 and the islands were not in any way settled or used by populations on/from the South American mainland preceding European discovery. There is a possibility that pre-historic tribes from Tierra Del Fuego visited, but that has not been established. Argentina’s claim lay in Spain placing its own colonial claim on the islands into the administrative aegis Argentina’s predecessor, the Rio De La Plate, which revolted from Spain and kept the claim, later using an American pirate to claim ownership over the islands following being forced to land there after raiding the Portuguese. Britain has colonised a great number of peoples and places around the world in the course of history, but Argentine suggestions that British colonisation of the Falklands is being comparable to islands in the Caribbean or elsewhere with pre-existing populations seems a blatantly false comparison. As I understand it the British inhabitants since 1833 represent the only known permanent settlement of any people on Earth and Argentina’s case against British colonialism effectively rely on their own claim rooted in Spanish colonialism and that the islands are closer to Argentina than they are to the UK. Proximity is not much of a leg to stand on in a world that is no longer defined by powers’ spheres of influence, and more so in the digital age. Argentina’s colonial claim seem to at best equate to the UK’s, but their argument of proximity does not come remotely close to two centuries of permanent British inhabitation. I’m not British, but I am from the Anglosphere, so there’s likely some bias, but the facts seem to be fairly straight forward. Am I missing something?