A lot would depend on the manner of the victory.
If it arose because the invasion had been delayed until John Nott's defence review been put in place, and Britain's capability of retaking the islands had disappeared, that leads to one possible line.
If it arose because Operation Corporate failed dismally, which could have happened in a number of ways, that leads to another possible line.
A third possible line is if, for some reason, there isn't the political will to do anything about it. This could be because Kirkpatrick gets her way, and the USA basically backs Argentina over Britain, and tells Britain to accept the situation. That leads to another possible line.
In the first instance, British capability can be quickly restored, and we move to a situation where Corporate* goes in against much better prepared defences. However, Corporate* will also be better organised, rather than being quite such an ad hoc on-the-fly arrangement.
In the second instance, the British forces (myself included) are not merely not available, but have won for themselves the prize of a small corner of a foreign field. These resources are not easily replaced, and the experience has gone. British capability to try again, despite some of the more gung-ho suggestions I've seen kicking around in my time, is screwed big time.
In the third instance, British capability is unaffected, but the political consequences for NATO, for example, are immense.
So before one can give a convincing answer, one really has to decide how the victory was achieved.