I have thought for many years that the Argentinian position on the Falkland Islands as being a British colony is fundamentally flawed. Colonialisation is when one country takes over another. However, there has never been a native population on the Falklands, and no deaths occured when the British settled there. It is not possible to eke out a subistence living on the islands given that the soil is poor and is only good for growing grass. Only after maritime trade became sophisticated enough could people live on the islands by trading wool and fish produced there for other goods. The British settlers are essentially the native peoples of those islands - a fact which does not appear to have been raised by them when defending their position.
The British public do not have any particular colonial sentiment about the Falkland Islands, it just seems the fair and just thing to allow the islanders there to remain. The UN grants the right of self-determination and that is what the people living freely express.
This appears to be less of an issue recently since the election in Argentina of a moderate president, Mauricio Macri, who appears to respect the rule of law, plus the decline in favour across South America of the left-wing governments who rallied to Argentina's position, so the future of the Falkland Islands in their present state seems much more assured.